• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:30
CEST 21:30
KST 04:30
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway42v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature2Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy8uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event17Serral wins EWC 202549
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple6SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments7[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread 2v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature Is there a way to see if 2 accounts=1 person? uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments SEL Masters #5 - Korea vs Russia (SC Evo) Enki Epic Series #5 - TaeJa vs Classic (SC Evo)
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 487 Think Fast Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull
Brood War
General
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway ASL 20 HYPE VIDEO! How do the new Battle.net ranks translate? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Soma Explains: JaeDong's Double Muta Micro
Tourneys
BWCL Season 63 Announcement Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches KCM 2025 Season 3 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI The year 2050
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Biochemical Cost of Gami…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2997 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1018

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
April 25 2014 01:12 GMT
#20341
On April 25 2014 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:
On April 25 2014 07:51 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:16 Gorsameth wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:11 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Thomas Piketty is not the anti-capitalist radical that his critics fear.

"The market economy," he tells me at the bar of the St Regis Hotel in downtown Washington, DC, "is a system that has a lot of merit." (The location was chosen by the publicist for the English edition of his book; she admitted to me that perhaps it was a little too "top one percent," but it fit everyone's schedule nicely.)

Piketty is very French, with several buttons on his shirt undone, a fairly thick accent, and a Bourdieu reference ready to drop in response to a question about whether economists overemphasize mathematical models over empirical analysis. His book, Capital in the 21st Century (see our short guide), is being widely hailed as the most important economics volume of the decade and this week became the top-selling book on Amazon. It provides intellectual heft for some of the activist energy around Occupy Wall Street and other efforts to advance a post-Obama left-wing politics. Its core thesis is that capitalism, if left untamed, suffers from a fundamental flaw and will inevitably lead to a growing concentration of economic power into the hands of those lucky enough to inherit large sums of wealth from their parents, a state Piketty calls "patrimonial capitalism."

National Review and The Nation rarely agree on much, but both the right-wing and the left-wing magazines have reviewed Piketty as part of a revival of Marxist thinking.

It's probably no coincidence that Americans see Piketty — a professor at École des hautes études en sciences sociales — as more left-wing than he sees himself. The French political debate is considerably broader than the American one (I recall a dinner a few years back at which a senior member of what's considered the moderate wing of France's currently-in-power Socialist Party told the room that the problem with American Democrats is they don't see the need to "transcend capitalism entirely.") So the view that capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80 percent on wage income supplemented by a modest tax on net wealth is not necessarily a radical viewpoint there. During our conversation he expressed admiration for the "responsible" attitude of German labor unions toward the needs of the firms they work for, presumably in contrast to the counterproductively militant attitudes of French labor.

Indeed, he is at pains to stress that he's not even really a madcap tax raiser or an enemy of wealth accumulation. "My point," he says, "is not to increase taxation of wealth. It's actually to reduce taxation of wealth for most people."


Source
I gotta hand it to the French to have an avowed Marxist really telling us what he thinks will fix the economy. "The market economy is a system that has a lot of merit" and "capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80%" and a wealth tax. Not for revenue per se, but we gotta blast the wealthy or inequality overtakes us all!

Good, you didnt actually read a single word of it. Wanne try that again?
Mince words if you want, call him a socialist. With semantics we can loop all the way back around that true communism was never realized etc etc. I do know he advocates a 80% top tax rate i.e. a very high rate on high incomes. He claims to be favorably disposed towards the concept of a market economy. His confiscatory regime is exactly antagonistic to a market economy and that's what I find so laughable. Buy and sell goods on the market and earn your profit, but don't be too successful at it, otherwise we're going to get ya!

It's been plastered over the news for quite a while now. He was feted by White House advisers. He wants to put an end to those high incomes in service of inequality. Now Gorsameth, unless your primary academic understandings are in your profession of insult comic, perhaps you'd like to comment on Pikkety and America's economic or political situation?

Except the entire point of his book is that those that have done nothing to earn their wealth (by inheritance or sheer luck) are able to keep it. Even in the case that they do earn it, however, they still pose a risk to the system by holding the power to influence the government (local, state, and federal) and communities to give them an unfair advantage and maintain their wealth.

How common is it to be rich just from inheritance? It seems like a lot of rich people got that way by working like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. I know that's anecdotal, which is partly why I'm asking.


You probably can't be super-mega-rich like Carlos Slim, Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates without some talent in corruption, making money from money, or monopoly. You should be asking how many people are born with $10M in inheritance vs people who earn a net worth of $10M from substantially less.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Wolfstan
Profile Joined March 2011
Canada605 Posts
April 25 2014 01:13 GMT
#20342
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?
EG - ROOT - Gambit Gaming
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4773 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-25 01:22:58
April 25 2014 01:21 GMT
#20343
On April 25 2014 10:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?


Credit where credit is due- it's impressive for the parents to be so successful that their children are set for life: their success is admirable. I see nothing admirable in the mere chance that one is born to such people. They didn't do anything.

I'm not for inheritance taxes, but I wouldn't call the inheritor "admirable" for doing nothing. It would be the benefactors.

Edit: if you mean strictly to say that those who earn enough that they can stop working, then that's different. But that's not what the conversation is about, so I'm assuming you mean "unearned" wealth passed on to future generations.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
April 25 2014 01:38 GMT
#20344
On April 25 2014 10:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?


You think living off of social programs because you are poor, sick, or old is deplorable?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 25 2014 01:50 GMT
#20345
Postal Workers Protest At Staples Over Shift In Jobs

U.S. postal workers took to the streets Thursday to protest in front of Staples office supply stores around the country. At issue is a decision to open Postal Service counters in Staples stores — something they say is siphoning away union jobs.

The postal workers' grievances come as their employer faces pressures to find new avenues of business. ...

Source

Unfortunately for the USPS workers they're in a dying industry. Things like this are going to happen more and more.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 25 2014 02:02 GMT
#20346
On April 25 2014 10:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
Postal Workers Protest At Staples Over Shift In Jobs

U.S. postal workers took to the streets Thursday to protest in front of Staples office supply stores around the country. At issue is a decision to open Postal Service counters in Staples stores — something they say is siphoning away union jobs.

The postal workers' grievances come as their employer faces pressures to find new avenues of business. ...

Source

Unfortunately for the USPS workers they're in a dying industry. Things like this are going to happen more and more.


They aren't in a dying industry moreso they are the latest target in the GOP tactic of starving the beast. Hell UPS, FedEx and other logistical services use USPS that generate hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 25 2014 02:21 GMT
#20347
On April 25 2014 11:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 10:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Postal Workers Protest At Staples Over Shift In Jobs

U.S. postal workers took to the streets Thursday to protest in front of Staples office supply stores around the country. At issue is a decision to open Postal Service counters in Staples stores — something they say is siphoning away union jobs.

The postal workers' grievances come as their employer faces pressures to find new avenues of business. ...

Source

Unfortunately for the USPS workers they're in a dying industry. Things like this are going to happen more and more.


They aren't in a dying industry moreso they are the latest target in the GOP tactic of starving the beast. Hell UPS, FedEx and other logistical services use USPS that generate hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
Parcel service does fine, but regular mail delivery is declining quite a bit.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
April 25 2014 02:22 GMT
#20348
Just out of curiosity since inequality debates have been going on: how many of you guys have actually read Piketty?
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
April 25 2014 02:57 GMT
#20349
I have not read Piketty; but I'm not commenting much on him so I don't feel a need to.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
April 25 2014 03:30 GMT
#20350
On April 25 2014 11:22 coverpunch wrote:
Just out of curiosity since inequality debates have been going on: how many of you guys have actually read Piketty?


I haven't read the whole book yet but I have listened to him quite a bit and read excerpts. I cant help but think of this video every time inequality comes up though

"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
April 25 2014 03:30 GMT
#20351
On April 25 2014 11:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 11:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On April 25 2014 10:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Postal Workers Protest At Staples Over Shift In Jobs

U.S. postal workers took to the streets Thursday to protest in front of Staples office supply stores around the country. At issue is a decision to open Postal Service counters in Staples stores — something they say is siphoning away union jobs.

The postal workers' grievances come as their employer faces pressures to find new avenues of business. ...

Source

Unfortunately for the USPS workers they're in a dying industry. Things like this are going to happen more and more.


They aren't in a dying industry moreso they are the latest target in the GOP tactic of starving the beast. Hell UPS, FedEx and other logistical services use USPS that generate hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
Parcel service does fine, but regular mail delivery is declining quite a bit.


Does USPS do parcel delivery? Does Staples do parcel delivery?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Wolfstan
Profile Joined March 2011
Canada605 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-25 06:07:39
April 25 2014 06:00 GMT
#20352
On April 25 2014 10:21 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 10:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?


Credit where credit is due- it's impressive for the parents to be so successful that their children are set for life: their success is admirable. I see nothing admirable in the mere chance that one is born to such people. They didn't do anything.

I'm not for inheritance taxes, but I wouldn't call the inheritor "admirable" for doing nothing. It would be the benefactors.

Edit: if you mean strictly to say that those who earn enough that they can stop working, then that's different. But that's not what the conversation is about, so I'm assuming you mean "unearned" wealth passed on to future generations.


I think 3rd parties differentiating and judging whether the wealth was earned or not is a good idea because birth lotteries are not palatable for the masses.
Should a farmer be allowed to keep the farm in the family?
Is a small business owner able to let his son run the business?
How about a Grandmother leaving valuable heirlooms to her granddaughter?
What is those heirlooms are comic books?
A rent collecting apartment building?
A dividend paying stock portfolio?
Where do you draw the line?

EG - ROOT - Gambit Gaming
Wolfstan
Profile Joined March 2011
Canada605 Posts
April 25 2014 06:01 GMT
#20353
On April 25 2014 10:38 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 10:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?


You think living off of social programs because you are poor, sick, or old is deplorable?


Deplorable is probably too strong a word, but it is still less desirable than living off investment income.
EG - ROOT - Gambit Gaming
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4773 Posts
April 25 2014 06:07 GMT
#20354
On April 25 2014 15:00 Wolfstan wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 10:21 Introvert wrote:
On April 25 2014 10:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?


Credit where credit is due- it's impressive for the parents to be so successful that their children are set for life: their success is admirable. I see nothing admirable in the mere chance that one is born to such people. They didn't do anything.

I'm not for inheritance taxes, but I wouldn't call the inheritor "admirable" for doing nothing. It would be the benefactors.

Edit: if you mean strictly to say that those who earn enough that they can stop working, then that's different. But that's not what the conversation is about, so I'm assuming you mean "unearned" wealth passed on to future generations.


I think 3rd parties differentiating and judging whether the wealth was earned or not because birth lotteries are not palatable for the masses.
Should a farmer be allowed to keep the farm in the family?
Is a small business owner able to let his son run the business?
How about a Grandmother leaving valuable heirlooms to her granddaughter?
What is those heirlooms are comic books?
A rent collecting apartment building?
A dividend paying stock portfolio?
Where do you draw the line?



My point was that if you are born to a rich person (which is obviously fine), and they leave 1 million (or more, also fine) that doesn't make the person who inherited it "admirable." They didn't do anything to make it that way.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, I'm questioning you in particular on this idea that it's "admirable" to come into wealth- unless you weren't talking about inheritance. It's good to not live off the state, yes. But the mere fact that one is born into wealth doesn't make that person any good at all- it's what they end up doing with it that will decide if they are "admirable."

That's all I mean.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
April 25 2014 06:52 GMT
#20355
On April 25 2014 15:01 Wolfstan wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 10:38 IgnE wrote:
On April 25 2014 10:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?


You think living off of social programs because you are poor, sick, or old is deplorable?


Deplorable is probably too strong a word, but it is still less desirable than living off investment income.


What does "desirable" mean?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Boblion
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
France8043 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-25 07:25:36
April 25 2014 07:02 GMT
#20356
On April 25 2014 06:32 WhiteDog wrote:
Piketty is not a marxist, not at all. Actually that's one of the most sound critic I've read about his book : he basically empirically shows that Marx was right (more than Kuznets or anyone else at least) but completly discard communism in the introduction (he says that he has no nostalgia for communism and basically imply that it always lead to totalitarism).

Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 05:58 Boblion wrote:
Taking economic lessons from the French. Good god America is truly doomed.

French economy is actually quite lively, with Olivier Blanchard, Esther Duflo and now Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.

Piketty is right when he talks about the inequalities and the accumulation of capital.
The problem with him and all the guys like Sam or IgnE is that they have 0 clue about Human history. The guy seriously thinks that the system which generated all those inequalities can change itself. It can't. All those pseudo mathematicians thinking that some new little numbers will do the trick lol. Like if we are all functions or something.
To make a real change you always need some Human blood. Or lies. Or both.

The hilarious fact is that (at least in France) the underclass is not exploited (not in the classical sense). They are PAID and that's why they don't even have the energy to start a revolution.

Piketty was the posterboy of the socialists during the 2012 campaign ("omygod we got an Econ teacher who is famous in America !") but he had absolutly zero influence on the current Economic policies of the French socialist governement lol.

If all this talk about inequalities and stuff was serious why we are not invading Malta, Monaco, the Isle of Man etc... where all the wealthy people are hidding their assets ? No instead we go to A-Stan and Mali to bring them "our" own vision of "equality" lol
Just think about it...
fuck all those elitists brb watching streams of elite players.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
April 25 2014 07:31 GMT
#20357
On April 25 2014 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 08:35 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:
On April 25 2014 07:51 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:16 Gorsameth wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:11 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Thomas Piketty is not the anti-capitalist radical that his critics fear.

"The market economy," he tells me at the bar of the St Regis Hotel in downtown Washington, DC, "is a system that has a lot of merit." (The location was chosen by the publicist for the English edition of his book; she admitted to me that perhaps it was a little too "top one percent," but it fit everyone's schedule nicely.)

Piketty is very French, with several buttons on his shirt undone, a fairly thick accent, and a Bourdieu reference ready to drop in response to a question about whether economists overemphasize mathematical models over empirical analysis. His book, Capital in the 21st Century (see our short guide), is being widely hailed as the most important economics volume of the decade and this week became the top-selling book on Amazon. It provides intellectual heft for some of the activist energy around Occupy Wall Street and other efforts to advance a post-Obama left-wing politics. Its core thesis is that capitalism, if left untamed, suffers from a fundamental flaw and will inevitably lead to a growing concentration of economic power into the hands of those lucky enough to inherit large sums of wealth from their parents, a state Piketty calls "patrimonial capitalism."

National Review and The Nation rarely agree on much, but both the right-wing and the left-wing magazines have reviewed Piketty as part of a revival of Marxist thinking.

It's probably no coincidence that Americans see Piketty — a professor at École des hautes études en sciences sociales — as more left-wing than he sees himself. The French political debate is considerably broader than the American one (I recall a dinner a few years back at which a senior member of what's considered the moderate wing of France's currently-in-power Socialist Party told the room that the problem with American Democrats is they don't see the need to "transcend capitalism entirely.") So the view that capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80 percent on wage income supplemented by a modest tax on net wealth is not necessarily a radical viewpoint there. During our conversation he expressed admiration for the "responsible" attitude of German labor unions toward the needs of the firms they work for, presumably in contrast to the counterproductively militant attitudes of French labor.

Indeed, he is at pains to stress that he's not even really a madcap tax raiser or an enemy of wealth accumulation. "My point," he says, "is not to increase taxation of wealth. It's actually to reduce taxation of wealth for most people."


Source
I gotta hand it to the French to have an avowed Marxist really telling us what he thinks will fix the economy. "The market economy is a system that has a lot of merit" and "capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80%" and a wealth tax. Not for revenue per se, but we gotta blast the wealthy or inequality overtakes us all!

Good, you didnt actually read a single word of it. Wanne try that again?
Mince words if you want, call him a socialist. With semantics we can loop all the way back around that true communism was never realized etc etc. I do know he advocates a 80% top tax rate i.e. a very high rate on high incomes. He claims to be favorably disposed towards the concept of a market economy. His confiscatory regime is exactly antagonistic to a market economy and that's what I find so laughable. Buy and sell goods on the market and earn your profit, but don't be too successful at it, otherwise we're going to get ya!

It's been plastered over the news for quite a while now. He was feted by White House advisers. He wants to put an end to those high incomes in service of inequality. Now Gorsameth, unless your primary academic understandings are in your profession of insult comic, perhaps you'd like to comment on Pikkety and America's economic or political situation?

Except the entire point of his book is that those that have done nothing to earn their wealth (by inheritance or sheer luck) are able to keep it. Even in the case that they do earn it, however, they still pose a risk to the system by holding the power to influence the government (local, state, and federal) and communities to give them an unfair advantage and maintain their wealth.
So you're saying he's declaring war against the lottery of birth?

On April 25 2014 08:23 oneofthem wrote:
danglars can you explain the concept of economic rent to us.
Perhaps you will connect it to his argument and/or make your own. Amongst the abundance of invective and hyperbole here, there simply isn't time to play cute games with you to try to find your points. However, let me leave you with this: should you actually desire an explanation of an economic term, perhaps google.com will supply you one?

it becomes difficult to 'argue' with you if you don't know the basic structure of the arguments being presented.
It's hard to know where you agree with Piketty and where you might diverge. You on board with his characterization of the millions of petits rentiers? You also agree with a proposed fix to those earning more than 500k/1mil, to put an end to such incomes (book quote)? How about that middling (I laugh as I type this) 50-60% rate on 200k types, or the annual wealth tax up to 10%? The first thing that comes to mind when I read his fixes his analysis is that this is a man longing for utopia. In his rewriting of the Soviet experiment, I see some wishful thinking for throwing off the chains of the common man ... without somehow substituting more and/or worse.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4773 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-25 07:51:33
April 25 2014 07:50 GMT
#20358
On April 25 2014 16:31 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:35 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:
On April 25 2014 07:51 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:16 Gorsameth wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:11 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Thomas Piketty is not the anti-capitalist radical that his critics fear.

"The market economy," he tells me at the bar of the St Regis Hotel in downtown Washington, DC, "is a system that has a lot of merit." (The location was chosen by the publicist for the English edition of his book; she admitted to me that perhaps it was a little too "top one percent," but it fit everyone's schedule nicely.)

Piketty is very French, with several buttons on his shirt undone, a fairly thick accent, and a Bourdieu reference ready to drop in response to a question about whether economists overemphasize mathematical models over empirical analysis. His book, Capital in the 21st Century (see our short guide), is being widely hailed as the most important economics volume of the decade and this week became the top-selling book on Amazon. It provides intellectual heft for some of the activist energy around Occupy Wall Street and other efforts to advance a post-Obama left-wing politics. Its core thesis is that capitalism, if left untamed, suffers from a fundamental flaw and will inevitably lead to a growing concentration of economic power into the hands of those lucky enough to inherit large sums of wealth from their parents, a state Piketty calls "patrimonial capitalism."

National Review and The Nation rarely agree on much, but both the right-wing and the left-wing magazines have reviewed Piketty as part of a revival of Marxist thinking.

It's probably no coincidence that Americans see Piketty — a professor at École des hautes études en sciences sociales — as more left-wing than he sees himself. The French political debate is considerably broader than the American one (I recall a dinner a few years back at which a senior member of what's considered the moderate wing of France's currently-in-power Socialist Party told the room that the problem with American Democrats is they don't see the need to "transcend capitalism entirely.") So the view that capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80 percent on wage income supplemented by a modest tax on net wealth is not necessarily a radical viewpoint there. During our conversation he expressed admiration for the "responsible" attitude of German labor unions toward the needs of the firms they work for, presumably in contrast to the counterproductively militant attitudes of French labor.

Indeed, he is at pains to stress that he's not even really a madcap tax raiser or an enemy of wealth accumulation. "My point," he says, "is not to increase taxation of wealth. It's actually to reduce taxation of wealth for most people."


Source
I gotta hand it to the French to have an avowed Marxist really telling us what he thinks will fix the economy. "The market economy is a system that has a lot of merit" and "capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80%" and a wealth tax. Not for revenue per se, but we gotta blast the wealthy or inequality overtakes us all!

Good, you didnt actually read a single word of it. Wanne try that again?
Mince words if you want, call him a socialist. With semantics we can loop all the way back around that true communism was never realized etc etc. I do know he advocates a 80% top tax rate i.e. a very high rate on high incomes. He claims to be favorably disposed towards the concept of a market economy. His confiscatory regime is exactly antagonistic to a market economy and that's what I find so laughable. Buy and sell goods on the market and earn your profit, but don't be too successful at it, otherwise we're going to get ya!

It's been plastered over the news for quite a while now. He was feted by White House advisers. He wants to put an end to those high incomes in service of inequality. Now Gorsameth, unless your primary academic understandings are in your profession of insult comic, perhaps you'd like to comment on Pikkety and America's economic or political situation?

Except the entire point of his book is that those that have done nothing to earn their wealth (by inheritance or sheer luck) are able to keep it. Even in the case that they do earn it, however, they still pose a risk to the system by holding the power to influence the government (local, state, and federal) and communities to give them an unfair advantage and maintain their wealth.
So you're saying he's declaring war against the lottery of birth?

On April 25 2014 08:23 oneofthem wrote:
danglars can you explain the concept of economic rent to us.
Perhaps you will connect it to his argument and/or make your own. Amongst the abundance of invective and hyperbole here, there simply isn't time to play cute games with you to try to find your points. However, let me leave you with this: should you actually desire an explanation of an economic term, perhaps google.com will supply you one?

it becomes difficult to 'argue' with you if you don't know the basic structure of the arguments being presented.
It's hard to know where you agree with Piketty and where you might diverge. You on board with his characterization of the millions of petits rentiers? You also agree with a proposed fix to those earning more than 500k/1mil, to put an end to such incomes (book quote)? How about that middling (I laugh as I type this) 50-60% rate on 200k types, or the annual wealth tax up to 10%? The first thing that comes to mind when I read his fixes his analysis is that this is a man longing for utopia. In his rewriting of the Soviet experiment, I see some wishful thinking for throwing off the chains of the common man ... without somehow substituting more and/or worse.


It seems to me that this is the entire problem with the Left's idea- the state is ultimately run by fallible, finite human beings who, even if they could know exactly how to fix the problem, wouldn't necessarily want to. Therefore, any expansion and increase of centralized authority (be it to individuals or groups) just quickens the gravity-like attraction between power and totalitarianism. And like gravity, the force always exists, but if you are moving fast enough at the right altitude, you can counter it- but never be free of it. If I may torture the analogy some more, it appears to me that liberalism mistakes the fact that one floats in space with the idea that "gravity has almost no effect on me here." One must not stop accounting for its effects. That's why they complain about powergrabs, large corporations and inequality while at the same time supporting the growth of the most effective and corruptible vehicle for their fears to be realized- the government.

I don't question their motives, I just think their goal is unreachable.

Unless they can change who people are, it seems wiser to follow the guide of history: the centralizing of power eventually leads to the suppression of people's rights.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
April 25 2014 07:54 GMT
#20359
On April 25 2014 16:31 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:35 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:
On April 25 2014 07:51 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:16 Gorsameth wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:11 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Thomas Piketty is not the anti-capitalist radical that his critics fear.

"The market economy," he tells me at the bar of the St Regis Hotel in downtown Washington, DC, "is a system that has a lot of merit." (The location was chosen by the publicist for the English edition of his book; she admitted to me that perhaps it was a little too "top one percent," but it fit everyone's schedule nicely.)

Piketty is very French, with several buttons on his shirt undone, a fairly thick accent, and a Bourdieu reference ready to drop in response to a question about whether economists overemphasize mathematical models over empirical analysis. His book, Capital in the 21st Century (see our short guide), is being widely hailed as the most important economics volume of the decade and this week became the top-selling book on Amazon. It provides intellectual heft for some of the activist energy around Occupy Wall Street and other efforts to advance a post-Obama left-wing politics. Its core thesis is that capitalism, if left untamed, suffers from a fundamental flaw and will inevitably lead to a growing concentration of economic power into the hands of those lucky enough to inherit large sums of wealth from their parents, a state Piketty calls "patrimonial capitalism."

National Review and The Nation rarely agree on much, but both the right-wing and the left-wing magazines have reviewed Piketty as part of a revival of Marxist thinking.

It's probably no coincidence that Americans see Piketty — a professor at École des hautes études en sciences sociales — as more left-wing than he sees himself. The French political debate is considerably broader than the American one (I recall a dinner a few years back at which a senior member of what's considered the moderate wing of France's currently-in-power Socialist Party told the room that the problem with American Democrats is they don't see the need to "transcend capitalism entirely.") So the view that capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80 percent on wage income supplemented by a modest tax on net wealth is not necessarily a radical viewpoint there. During our conversation he expressed admiration for the "responsible" attitude of German labor unions toward the needs of the firms they work for, presumably in contrast to the counterproductively militant attitudes of French labor.

Indeed, he is at pains to stress that he's not even really a madcap tax raiser or an enemy of wealth accumulation. "My point," he says, "is not to increase taxation of wealth. It's actually to reduce taxation of wealth for most people."


Source
I gotta hand it to the French to have an avowed Marxist really telling us what he thinks will fix the economy. "The market economy is a system that has a lot of merit" and "capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80%" and a wealth tax. Not for revenue per se, but we gotta blast the wealthy or inequality overtakes us all!

Good, you didnt actually read a single word of it. Wanne try that again?
Mince words if you want, call him a socialist. With semantics we can loop all the way back around that true communism was never realized etc etc. I do know he advocates a 80% top tax rate i.e. a very high rate on high incomes. He claims to be favorably disposed towards the concept of a market economy. His confiscatory regime is exactly antagonistic to a market economy and that's what I find so laughable. Buy and sell goods on the market and earn your profit, but don't be too successful at it, otherwise we're going to get ya!

It's been plastered over the news for quite a while now. He was feted by White House advisers. He wants to put an end to those high incomes in service of inequality. Now Gorsameth, unless your primary academic understandings are in your profession of insult comic, perhaps you'd like to comment on Pikkety and America's economic or political situation?

Except the entire point of his book is that those that have done nothing to earn their wealth (by inheritance or sheer luck) are able to keep it. Even in the case that they do earn it, however, they still pose a risk to the system by holding the power to influence the government (local, state, and federal) and communities to give them an unfair advantage and maintain their wealth.
So you're saying he's declaring war against the lottery of birth?

On April 25 2014 08:23 oneofthem wrote:
danglars can you explain the concept of economic rent to us.
Perhaps you will connect it to his argument and/or make your own. Amongst the abundance of invective and hyperbole here, there simply isn't time to play cute games with you to try to find your points. However, let me leave you with this: should you actually desire an explanation of an economic term, perhaps google.com will supply you one?

it becomes difficult to 'argue' with you if you don't know the basic structure of the arguments being presented.
It's hard to know where you agree with Piketty and where you might diverge. You on board with his characterization of the millions of petits rentiers? You also agree with a proposed fix to those earning more than 500k/1mil, to put an end to such incomes (book quote)? How about that middling (I laugh as I type this) 50-60% rate on 200k types, or the annual wealth tax up to 10%? The first thing that comes to mind when I read his fixes his analysis is that this is a man longing for utopia. In his rewriting of the Soviet experiment, I see some wishful thinking for throwing off the chains of the common man ... without somehow substituting more and/or worse.


What are you even talking about? We had higher marginal tax rates on that kind of income back in the 50s and 60s when we were fighting the Soviet menace. Are you laughing as tippy toes leave the ground and you float off into unreality? Invoking the spectre of "Soviet experiments" and failed utopias?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
April 25 2014 07:57 GMT
#20360
On April 25 2014 16:50 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 25 2014 16:31 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:35 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:
On April 25 2014 07:51 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:16 Gorsameth wrote:
On April 25 2014 06:11 Danglars wrote:
On April 25 2014 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Thomas Piketty is not the anti-capitalist radical that his critics fear.

"The market economy," he tells me at the bar of the St Regis Hotel in downtown Washington, DC, "is a system that has a lot of merit." (The location was chosen by the publicist for the English edition of his book; she admitted to me that perhaps it was a little too "top one percent," but it fit everyone's schedule nicely.)

Piketty is very French, with several buttons on his shirt undone, a fairly thick accent, and a Bourdieu reference ready to drop in response to a question about whether economists overemphasize mathematical models over empirical analysis. His book, Capital in the 21st Century (see our short guide), is being widely hailed as the most important economics volume of the decade and this week became the top-selling book on Amazon. It provides intellectual heft for some of the activist energy around Occupy Wall Street and other efforts to advance a post-Obama left-wing politics. Its core thesis is that capitalism, if left untamed, suffers from a fundamental flaw and will inevitably lead to a growing concentration of economic power into the hands of those lucky enough to inherit large sums of wealth from their parents, a state Piketty calls "patrimonial capitalism."

National Review and The Nation rarely agree on much, but both the right-wing and the left-wing magazines have reviewed Piketty as part of a revival of Marxist thinking.

It's probably no coincidence that Americans see Piketty — a professor at École des hautes études en sciences sociales — as more left-wing than he sees himself. The French political debate is considerably broader than the American one (I recall a dinner a few years back at which a senior member of what's considered the moderate wing of France's currently-in-power Socialist Party told the room that the problem with American Democrats is they don't see the need to "transcend capitalism entirely.") So the view that capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80 percent on wage income supplemented by a modest tax on net wealth is not necessarily a radical viewpoint there. During our conversation he expressed admiration for the "responsible" attitude of German labor unions toward the needs of the firms they work for, presumably in contrast to the counterproductively militant attitudes of French labor.

Indeed, he is at pains to stress that he's not even really a madcap tax raiser or an enemy of wealth accumulation. "My point," he says, "is not to increase taxation of wealth. It's actually to reduce taxation of wealth for most people."


Source
I gotta hand it to the French to have an avowed Marxist really telling us what he thinks will fix the economy. "The market economy is a system that has a lot of merit" and "capitalism should be tempered by a top tax rate of 80%" and a wealth tax. Not for revenue per se, but we gotta blast the wealthy or inequality overtakes us all!

Good, you didnt actually read a single word of it. Wanne try that again?
Mince words if you want, call him a socialist. With semantics we can loop all the way back around that true communism was never realized etc etc. I do know he advocates a 80% top tax rate i.e. a very high rate on high incomes. He claims to be favorably disposed towards the concept of a market economy. His confiscatory regime is exactly antagonistic to a market economy and that's what I find so laughable. Buy and sell goods on the market and earn your profit, but don't be too successful at it, otherwise we're going to get ya!

It's been plastered over the news for quite a while now. He was feted by White House advisers. He wants to put an end to those high incomes in service of inequality. Now Gorsameth, unless your primary academic understandings are in your profession of insult comic, perhaps you'd like to comment on Pikkety and America's economic or political situation?

Except the entire point of his book is that those that have done nothing to earn their wealth (by inheritance or sheer luck) are able to keep it. Even in the case that they do earn it, however, they still pose a risk to the system by holding the power to influence the government (local, state, and federal) and communities to give them an unfair advantage and maintain their wealth.
So you're saying he's declaring war against the lottery of birth?

On April 25 2014 08:23 oneofthem wrote:
danglars can you explain the concept of economic rent to us.
Perhaps you will connect it to his argument and/or make your own. Amongst the abundance of invective and hyperbole here, there simply isn't time to play cute games with you to try to find your points. However, let me leave you with this: should you actually desire an explanation of an economic term, perhaps google.com will supply you one?

it becomes difficult to 'argue' with you if you don't know the basic structure of the arguments being presented.
It's hard to know where you agree with Piketty and where you might diverge. You on board with his characterization of the millions of petits rentiers? You also agree with a proposed fix to those earning more than 500k/1mil, to put an end to such incomes (book quote)? How about that middling (I laugh as I type this) 50-60% rate on 200k types, or the annual wealth tax up to 10%? The first thing that comes to mind when I read his fixes his analysis is that this is a man longing for utopia. In his rewriting of the Soviet experiment, I see some wishful thinking for throwing off the chains of the common man ... without somehow substituting more and/or worse.


It seems to me that this is the entire problem with the Left's idea- the state is ultimately run by fallible, finite human beings who, even if they could know exactly how to fix the problem, wouldn't necessarily want to. Therefore, any expansion and increase of centralized authority (be it to individuals or groups) just quickens the gravity-like attraction between power and totalitarianism. And like gravity, the force always exists, but if you are moving fast enough at the right altitude, you can counter it- but never be free of it. If I may torture the analogy some more, it appears to me that liberalism mistakes the fact that one floats in space with the idea that "gravity has almost no effect on me here." One must not stop accounting for its effects. That's why they complain about powergrabs, large corporations and inequality while at the same time supporting the growth of the most effective and corruptible vehicle for their fears to be realized- the government.

I don't question their motives, I just think their goal is unreachable.

Unless they can change who people are, it seems wiser to follow the guide of history: the centralizing of power eventually leads to the suppression of people's rights.


How would you characterize the suppression of rights under FDR's administration?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Prev 1 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL Team Wars
19:00
Round 3
Team Dewalt vs Team Bonyth
LiquipediaDiscussion
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
15:00
Playoffs Day 2
uThermal1377
IndyStarCraft 350
SteadfastSC320
Rex59
YoungYakov36
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
uThermal 1377
IndyStarCraft 350
SteadfastSC 320
ProTech105
MindelVK 66
Rex 59
CosmosSc2 1
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 32136
Calm 2881
Rain 1773
ggaemo 146
ToSsGirL 50
NaDa 34
SilentControl 8
Dota 2
qojqva4517
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Reynor57
Counter-Strike
fl0m2276
ScreaM2051
Stewie2K206
Heroes of the Storm
Grubby2624
Liquid`Hasu803
Khaldor520
Other Games
FrodaN1566
B2W.Neo1104
Mlord384
RotterdaM341
KnowMe165
PiGStarcraft155
ViBE138
Hui .89
ZombieGrub59
JuggernautJason23
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1411
StarCraft 2
ComeBackTV 239
angryscii 25
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• sM.Zik 1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 3153
• masondota21347
• WagamamaTV394
Counter-Strike
• imaqtpie1079
• Shiphtur228
Upcoming Events
Afreeca Starleague
14h 30m
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
19h 30m
RotterdaM Event
20h 30m
Replay Cast
1d 4h
Replay Cast
1d 14h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 14h
JyJ vs TY
Bisu vs Speed
WardiTV Summer Champion…
1d 15h
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Mini vs TBD
Soma vs sSak
WardiTV Summer Champion…
2 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
LiuLi Cup
4 days
BSL Team Wars
4 days
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
SC Evo League
5 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
5 days
[BSL 2025] Weekly
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
SC Evo League
6 days
BSL Team Wars
6 days
Team Bonyth vs Team Sziky
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-08-13
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 20
CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
CSLAN 3
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.