from Hacker News

Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

by cee_el123 on 9/5/22, 3:01 PM with 108 comments

  • by larsiusprime on 9/5/22, 3:56 PM

    Just want to point out two things:

    1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate, while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat.

    2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on his interview [2] with Piketty and Piketty essentially conceded the point.

    Tyler implied therefore that the natural conclusion is Georgism[3]

    [1] https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall...

    [2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/thomas-piketty/

    [3] http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal#a-brief-rec...

  • by epgui on 9/5/22, 4:13 PM

    I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "meritocracy trap". ie.: believing they are mostly where they are because of ability, worthiness or hard work, rather than mostly luck.

    That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

  • by tschwimmer on 9/5/22, 4:05 PM

    Piketty always has insightful commentary on the topic and I'll definitely be checking out this book. I think we'll come to recognize that R > G is an important influencer for social stability and long term prosperity.

    That said, I do wonder if we're looking at inequality (or more specifically hierarchy) through the wrong lens. It seems like almost all independent societies naturally develop some sort of hierarchy (chief, priest, leader) without any outside influence. To me that points to some underlying natural law or at least a biologically-influenced tendency that higher level social constructs will be ineffective at changing.

  • by ryanschneider on 9/5/22, 3:31 PM

  • by endisneigh on 9/5/22, 4:05 PM

    Is there a single example in history where income redistribution worked while it was also easy for foreigners to enter the country and growth persisted for everyone while maintaining said ratios of acceptable inequality?

    - If you don't allow foreigners, I'll argue that you haven't solved anything. You've simple picked the winners.

    - If the ratio of inequality is disrupted, I'd also argue you haven't done anything other than move the problem (and the losers) to the future.

    - If you decide not to redistribute, well that's the current situation for better or worse.

    Personally I think a better problem to solve is for humanity in general to decide what the minimum level of prosperity should be, worldwide and slowly try to raise this bar. AFAIK this is basically what we're doing. We could raise the bar faster, though.

  • by moistly on 9/6/22, 3:22 AM

    What we have now is obviously not working. We have serious homeless problems involving children. That is plainly the mark of a state that is failing its citizens. There is more wealth around than we have use for (see: space yachts, meme coins, NFTs), so instead of leaving it to slosh around in stupid risky ventures, move it into pro-social infrastructure and health/education support services. There is more than enough wealth abundance to uplift the most disadvantaged while still allowing the wealthiest to live out their fantasies.

  • by jschveibinz on 9/5/22, 6:23 PM

    If some entity, be it the government or some other institution, is to take the responsibility of redistributing wealth by any means (taxation, welfare, rent control, etc.), does not that institution then bear the responsibility of determining what is equitable? Does this change over time?

    And doesn’t that institution also bear the responsibility of the generational social and cultural impacts?

    Does wealth redistribution reach stasis at a standard of living that is lower than is currently achievable? Does the golden goose eventually stop laying eggs?

    Social engineering experiments can have many unforeseeable impacts - both good and bad. There is no guarantee that the ultimate results will be better than the starting conditions.

    Whatever is done, it should be done slowly and under controlled conditions so that the impacts can be measured.

  • by cee_el123 on 9/5/22, 3:01 PM

    ( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book )

    ( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )