Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdog | Hacker News Reader

The central thesis of Piketty's Capital[1] is that inequality is a core feature of capitalism. He backs this with meticulous research[2] into centuries of wealth, income, and tax data. You can argue about what is the "right" level of inequality or with the policy recommendations (that massive government interventionism via a global tax on wealth is required). However, the results and data are solid.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-P...

[2]: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Fig...

View on HN

"capitalism"

That word is the problem. It means something different for every person. To you it means one thing, to him it means another. When people criticize capitalism their arguments are always convincing because you project your own negative connotations into the word.

Well said. It always pains me to see people criticising capitalism for easy points, when despite its flaws it has brought us an age of unprecedented equality and prosperity. That's not to say it's necessarily the best "system" for the future, but tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive.

"it has brought us an age of unprecedented equality and prosperity"

People say this, yet when I have traveled in some of the poorest countries in the world (Zambia and Nepal for example) they seem a lot more capitalistic than Europe / the US. It seems to bring some people wealth at the expense of others.

What do you mean by "capitalistic"?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=capitalistic

> unprecedented equality

Right. Which is why when I kill someone, I go to jail, and when George Bush attacks a country, the crickets chirp.

> tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive.

More importantly, it's a straw man.

edit: if anyone is seriously debating that's a straw man, use your words.

unprecedented equality != perfect equality

Unprecedented equality means that in a capitalistic (Western) society almost everybody eats a hot meal everyday day, has free time to enjoy, has an assortment of clothes, furniture and things, has a place to live with running water and electricity and appliances that run with said electricity.

All things that only the richest people could dream of enjoying just a couple of centuries ago.

Okay, and what about equality before the law and other such things? "Be happy you have a home, shut up", or what?

> It always pains me to see people criticising capitalism for easy points, when despite its flaws it has brought us an age of unprecedented equality and prosperity.

That's an achievement of a hockey-stick rise in exploitation of fossil fuels and energy use per capita, not some esoterically defined system called capitalism.

Just about the only core tenet of capitalism are strong protections of property rights. All of the negatives typically associated with capitalism are due to failures in regulation (over or under) and the irrationality of human beings and their policies.

And while we're communicating, you're also completely ignoring the time axis. Global warming and other neat things on the horizon, anyone? We can't even be arsed to take that seriously. We have super awesome equality because progress wasn't exponential for millenia, no, capitalism came up with that, and when civilians get murdered more or less nilly-willy, and we wreck our long-term prospects for material comfort and social cowardice you just keep having polite conversation about the table cloth and think that's civilized. You can talk about how the masses do or think this or that, but you can't deal with any sort of discussion with bite it seems. When people are having dinner and someone suddenly kills their wife, or "just" the maid or some random stranger, you can continue eating, and I can call it out.

If that is the sole claim of Piketty, then it is not new. Do you believe Piketty claims anything beyond "inequality is a core feature of capitalism"?

That simple claim would also not imply the conclusions you claim, namely that some global disincentive for saving is needed.

What specific claims must one refute to prove Piketty wrong? Or can one refute every claim, yet Piketty will still be part of the zeitgeist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com