2 ms·

Piketty is trying to describe a trend in the system. His message is very clear: If (rate of return on capital > rate of growth) then inequality happens. This

Piketty is trying to describe a trend in the system. His message is very clear: If (rate of return on capital > rate of growth) then inequality happens. This is not a so absurd thing to say. In support of this, he contribute massive data where data was available. You can agree with it or not, but it should discuss in its own merits and don't dismiss it because it is not convenient.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I am indeed arguing the claim has no merit, rather than simply dismissing it. Pikettys message (or at least your interpretation of it) is simply wrong. You need more than r>g as simple math examples show: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequality.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequali... (Piketty does have a paper where he provides sufficient, albeit wildly unrealistic, conditions where it is true. I.e. you need a lot more than r>g.) I'm also arguing that brankovics data is more complete than pikettys, and invalidates it. This is precisely an argument against rather than a dismissal. Dismissal is what the op did to brankovic - ignore the argument rather than show why it's wrong.
ajuc 11y ago
Isn't it like measuring temperature in non-isolated system and saying "entropy decreases spontanously"?
- RobertoG 11y ago
  I like your metaphor, I think I'm going to use it in the future. Entropy is going down in India and China but it's going up in the States and Europe. Does it means that the entropy trend, of all the system, is going down or up?
qubex 11y ago
The thing that annoys me is that compounding (of interest, or economic growth) is order-dependent: given an average but unequal rate of either, you always maximise the outcome by placing the higher values earlier, and the smaller values later, so that the low rates (of interest, or of economic growth) compound upon what is already a maximally expanded base. So speaking of averages is actually rather misleading.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Multiplication is commutative, you are completely wrong.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I am indeed arguing the claim has no merit, rather than simply dismissing it. Pikettys message (or at least your interpretation of it) is simply wrong. You need more than r>g as simple math examples show: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequality.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequali... (Piketty does have a paper where he provides sufficient, albeit wildly unrealistic, conditions where it is true. I.e. you need a lot more than r>g.) I'm also arguing that brankovics data is more complete than pikettys, and invalidates it. This is precisely an argument against rather than a dismissal. Dismissal is what the op did to brankovic - ignore the argument rather than show why it's wrong.

ajuc 11y ago

Isn't it like measuring temperature in non-isolated system and saying "entropy decreases spontanously"?

RobertoG 11y ago
I like your metaphor, I think I'm going to use it in the future. Entropy is going down in India and China but it's going up in the States and Europe. Does it means that the entropy trend, of all the system, is going down or up?

qubex 11y ago

The thing that annoys me is that compounding (of interest, or economic growth) is order-dependent: given an average but unequal rate of either, you always maximise the outcome by placing the higher values earlier, and the smaller values later, so that the low rates (of interest, or of economic growth) compound upon what is already a maximally expanded base. So speaking of averages is actually rather misleading.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Multiplication is commutative, you are completely wrong.