New Best Seller In Economics

[Jauronimo]

oh no! do gooders! only on this forum would those that seek to do good be disparaged. presumably those that seek to do bad are to be admired? or maybe those that just want to look after themselves, unconcerned with anyone elses circumstances are the ones most revered.

Only an idiot would value intentions above results and misconstrue "naive do-goodery" in that example as condemnation of trying to act for the betterment of man. Such skewed values and comprehension issues are at the heart of seemingly every political debate. I don't expect you to understand.

[birdog1960]

 

Give us reasons for both.

well other than abject poverty versus pretentious, conspicuous, wasteful and over the top wealth (have you seen the hunger games - a caricature but nevertheless relevant and very popular - kinda like this book), i'd cite medicine. it's generally considered good to promote diversity of ideas in treatment and diagnosis. the extremes of active euthanasia, chelation therapy ansd homeopathy are nearly universally panned. and rightfully so.

[meazza]

wait a minute. I am 1/16 French. easy with the generalizations.

 

Va chier.

[Azalin]

oh no! do gooders! only on this forum would those that seek to do good be disparaged. presumably those that seek to do bad are to be admired? or maybe those that just want to look after themselves, unconcerned with anyone elses circumstances are the ones most revered.

if you were being honest about it, you'd at least acknowledge that it isn't the desire to do good or help others that people here have an issue with, but the methods of attempting to do so. this crap that conservatives and liberatarians don't care about others or aren't willing to help them is bogus, and you know it.

[B-Man]

What’s Wrong with Piketty’s Answer To Inequality

By Veronique de Rugy

 

A lot has been written about the new book by Thomas Piketty on income inequality. Let’s leave aside the question of whether inequality is really growing out of controlas he claims it is, or the idea that the main reason inequality has increased is that the return to capital has been greater than the general growth in the economy (that’s the “r > g“).

 

I have an issue with his prescription that all that’s needed is a global wealth tax (meant to destroy some wealth at the top) to lower the rate of return on capital as a means of controlling income inequality. If everyone recognizes that people who own wealth are in a better position than those who don’t, and that this advantage is cumulative over time, why not try to increase access to capital for more people, especially for those in the bottom, rather than try to hammer the ones at the top?

 

{snip}

 

The bottom line: If capital is leading to inequality, then we should devote public policy to finding ways to remove the barriers to capital formation and saving that affect lower-income families, provide better targeted incentives for them to save and invest (not increase their level of personal debt), rather than distracting ourselves with trying to reduce the rate of return on capital, which will only hurt everyone.

 

This won’t be easy, and it won’t appeal the soak-the-rich advocates. But it would have an actual positive impact on middle- and lower-income people in a way just destroying rich people’s wealth wouldn’t.

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

“Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the new book by the French economist Thomas Piketty, is a bona fide phenomenon. Other books on economics have been best sellers, but Mr. Piketty’s contribution is serious, discourse-changing scholarship in a way most best sellers aren’t. And conservatives are terrified. Thus James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute warns in National Review that Mr. Piketty’s work must be refuted, because otherwise it “will spread among the clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all future policy battles will be waged.”

Well, good luck with that. The really striking thing about the debate so far is that the right seems unable to mount any kind of substantive counterattack to Mr. Piketty’s thesis. Instead, the response has been all about name-calling — in particular, claims that Mr. Piketty is a Marxist, and so is anyone who considers inequality of income and wealth an important issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/krugman-the-piketty-panic.html?_r=0

 

.

The bottom line: If capital is leading to inequality, then we should devote public policy to finding ways to remove the barriers to capital formation and saving that affect lower-income families, provide better targeted incentives for them to save and invest (not increase their level of personal debt), rather than distracting ourselves with trying to reduce the rate of return on capital, which will only hurt everyone.

 

You mean like a pay raise for those at the bottom so they actually have something to save?

[birdog1960]

.

geez, why hasn't anybody thought of this before? lower income targated incentives to save and invest. someone making minimum wage should be able to put away at least 40 or 50 bucks a year...unless there stove goes out or it's a really cold winter, or their rent increases or...

[B-Man]

geez, why hasn't anybody thought of this before? lower income targated incentives to save and invest. someone making minimum wage should be able to put away at least 40 or 50 bucks a year...unless there stove goes out or it's a really cold winter, or their rent increases or...

 

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy.

 

She received her MA in economics from the Paris Dauphine University and her PhD in economics from the Pantheon-Sorbonne University.

 

She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy.

 

 

 

Yeah, if only the author had the simplified insight that Birdog has..............................

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

geez, why hasn't anybody thought of this before? lower income targated incentives to save and invest. someone making minimum wage should be able to put away at least 40 or 50 bucks a year...unless there stove goes out or it's a really cold winter, or their rent increases or...

 

Minimum wage? Seriously?? Someone making minimum wage calls the landlord when their stove goes out. If they are making minimum wage and and own a home then I think the minimum wage level works.

 

I think the concern is for the middle class (that has been the rallying cry of the left hasn't it?) and they already have incentives to save. Question is are they saving or getting that next generation iPhone instead?

[DC Tom]

You mean like a pay raise for those at the bottom so they actually have something to save?

 

They don't need savings. That's what Social Security is for.

[B-Large]

Minimum wage? Seriously?? Someone making minimum wage calls the landlord when their stove goes out. If they are making minimum wage and and own a home then I think the minimum wage level works.

 

I think the concern is for the middle class (that has been the rallying cry of the left hasn't it?) and they already have incentives to save. Question is are they saving or getting that next generation iPhone instead?

 

there's the rub. people need to save, but the economy which is 75% cosumer spending relies on them to spend every dollar they earn, or darn near close to it. I will give the slight edge to people being stupid- no better display of outward wastefulness and spending that Christmas- but then again, the red light goes off Holiday sales suck... its a catch-22.

[Chef Jim]

there's the rub. people need to save, but the economy which is 75% cosumer spending relies on them to spend every dollar they earn, or darn near close to it. I will give the slight edge to people being stupid- no better display of outward wastefulness and spending that Christmas- but then again, the red light goes off Holiday sales suck... its a catch-22.

 

Which is worse. I less consumer driven economy today or tens of millions of people with nowhere near enough to retire later. It's not a catch 22. It's only a catch 22 for those with no discipline to save.

[B-Large]

Which is worse. I less consumer driven economy today or tens of millions of people with nowhere near enough to retire later. It's not a catch 22. It's only a catch 22 for those with no discipline to save.

 

there both bad- people don't spend, the economy sucks. People spend, they're saving levels suck. Pick your poison. Which is worse, in aggregate in the end is a task for a economic researcher.

[Chef Jim]

there both bad- people don't spend, the economy sucks. People spend, they're saving levels suck. Pick your poison. Which is worse, in aggregate in the end is a task for a economic researcher.

 

Yeah you're right. It's either or.

[birdog1960]

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy.

 

She received her MA in economics from the Paris Dauphine University and her PhD in economics from the Pantheon-Sorbonne University.

 

She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy.

 

 

 

Yeah, if only the author had the simplified insight that Birdog has..............................

 

 

.

and none of those credentials answers the obvious question of how low income people that often can't pay for essentials without govt assistance are supposed to save. and if they were somehow able to how that would make a noticeable difference in income inequality. she's talking about spit in the ocean.

[Chef Jim]

and none of those credentials answers the obvious question of how low income people that often can't pay for essentials without govt assistance are supposed to save. and if they were somehow able to how that would make a noticeable difference in income inequality. she's talking about spit in the ocean.

 

Don't worry the poor are being taken care of. The poor in this country would be considered solid middle class many other places. So throwing the poor a bone is going to make a noticeable difference in the income inequality??

[birdog1960]

Don't worry the poor are being taken care of. The poor in this country would be considered solid middle class many other places. So throwing the poor a bone is going to make a noticeable difference in the income inequality??

um, that's kinda picketty's point. the only way to stem the rising (and already pre WWI level of) inequality is to tax the very wealthy more. any interventions on behalf of the poor alone (or even involving the middle class) won't alter the arithmetic appreciably.

[3rdnlng]

um, that's kinda picketty's point. the only way to stem the rising (and already pre WWI level of) inequality is to tax the very wealthy more. any interventions on behalf of the poor alone (or even involving the middle class) won't alter the arithmetic appreciably.

 

So, in other words, the plight of the poor is not your primary concern but the level of inequality is? Your compassion for equality is touching.

[birdog1960]

So, in other words, the plight of the poor is not your primary concern but the level of inequality is? Your compassion for equality is touching.

i'm beginning to get the idea that most of you have no idea what this book is about. i'm shocked. gator's initial link had this excellent link included. if you are not just feigning interest, it's a good place to start. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-democracy.html#

[Chef Jim]

um, that's kinda picketty's point. the only way to stem the rising (and already pre WWI level of) inequality is to tax the very wealthy more. any interventions on behalf of the poor alone (or even involving the middle class) won't alter the arithmetic appreciably.

 

So we punish success so the poor become what exactly??

 

i'm beginning to get the idea that most of you have no idea what this book is about. i'm shocked. gator's initial link had this excellent link included. if you are not just feigning interest, it's a good place to start. http://www.nytimes.c...democracy.html#

 

It appears to be 700 pages of redistribution of wealth. Did I get it right?