3 ms·
Meh. I didn't write a follow up to PG's follow up because I assumed he wouldn't be receptive to my arguments and didn't want to start a war of words over a topi
by cryoshon 11y ago
Meh. I didn't write a follow up to PG's follow up because I assumed he wouldn't be receptive to my arguments and didn't want to start a war of words over a topic that has been rehashed a bajillion times. Even the economists are saying we need to reduce economic inequality if we want to avoid disaster. That's far more topical thought and information than anyone arguing on HN can bring to bear, I assume. (I really hope I am right.)
The OP article is definitely factual with its four main points-- I'd also like to add that the trick of putting yourself into the opposing position's shoes and reconstructing their argument is one of the best rhetorical techniques that exists.
- cobaltblue 11y agoCan you name three? In any case, a good economist typically just says what the state of the world is or will be given x, y, z, not what should be. I can think of one economist (Robin Hanson) who doesn't say "we should reduce financial inequality".
- cryoshon 11y agoFriedman, Piketty, Stiglitz, Krugman. I see what you are saying, though-- the exact prescription may not be something any of these four have said, though they certainly detail the consequences of inequality.
- ConfuciusSay 11y agoHere are four - Era Dabla-Norris ; Kalpana Kochhar ; Nujin Suphaphiphat ; Frantisek Ricka ; Evridiki Tsounta. They work at a little organization called the International Monetary Fund, and they conclude: "We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down." https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986....