4 ms·
I'd argue that the main problem with the theory is that there are plenty of places where there is high income inequality (such as the United States, as indicate
by archgoon 11y ago
I'd argue that the main problem with the theory is that there are plenty of places where there is high income inequality (such as the United States, as indicated by the diagram) and something like ISIS seems rather unlikely† .
Sure, you can say that inequality may have contributed to the issue, but there are a ton of factors that have resulted in Syria being plunged in Civil War. Pointing to any one as a decisive factor seems like an inevitable simplification. Also, it doesn't really answer the question "Why _now_?". Claiming that something eventually happen is not really predictive if no time frame can be given.
† Or I might be overly optimistic about my own country's stability.
- Bud 11y agoarchgoon: We have had extremely frequent domestic terror incidents in the US recently which can be readily linked to religious and political extremism, notably the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shootings.
- archgoon 11y agoTo me, there is a mild quantitative difference between a civil war with a death count in the hundreds of thousands and millions displaced versus a few dozen killed every year. I don't see anywhere in Piketty's theory a place to plug in "Amount of Inequality" and expected number of deaths. I'd like to see a regression plot at least.
- Bud 11y agoThing about measuring civil wars is, they are really hard to measure until, all of a sudden, one starts. Then it's quite easy.