4 ms·

In this comment I disagree with Piketty. It is written very rigorously, you must find a very careful deductive argument in it. (Otherwise it's useless.) So, t

In this comment I disagree with Piketty. It is written very rigorously, you must find a very careful deductive argument in it. (Otherwise it's useless.) So, the rest of this comment makes a very dense argument, first using a proxy argument and then switching in the actual argument. The proxy argument is correct but probably you don't like reading it. So just get through it like bitter medicine. So. Proxy argument. True statement: Computers are inherently unegalitarian because smarter people get more utility out of them. You simply cannot give the same amount of utility to a dumber and a smarter person at the same capital cost. So far you might be thinking "Huh? You're saying smarter people get more pleasure out of reading so the Internet is unequal? What the hell... Anyone can read, who cares if some people get more pleasure out of it and others less?" But the problem is that nearly the same argument applies to startups and creating wealth. Instead of utility (personal pleasure from the Internet), you are now discussing "access to the wheels of capitalism". Musk slept at the office and shared a computer. Sergey Brin is a Ukrainian immigrant. The reason these people have unequal results is because computers are inherently not egalitarian: smart people just get more out of them. You can't stop it, any more than you can stop smart people from getting more pleasure from reading. Can't be done. sorry. Here is a question Piketty didn't ask: what percent of dynastic, billionaire wealth was created in a single generation in America? Not addressed at all. [EDIT: removed reference to more information than is contained here. This comment contains all of the information to understand my point.]

jackmott 9y ago
it isn't at all clear what your point is.
- logicallee 9y ago
  [I've removed this comment.]
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    I think people downvote you because your post had a zombo.com feel to it - it talks on and on about how great and to the point it is, with the actual point being rather hard to find. My reading is that your whole argument is this paragraph: > Here is a question Piketty didn't ask: what percent of dynastic, billionaire wealth was created in a single generation in America? I think it's a fair point, IIRC it was also raised during EconTalk discussion with Piketty (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/09/thomas_piketty.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/09/thomas_piketty.html).
    - logicallee 9y ago
      [I've removed this comment. I have nothing to reply to the reply to it.]
      - totalrobe 9y ago
        Your "argument" is not as profound as you think. Since humans have been on this earth, some are obviously more successful using technology than others. Also, some are better at communication than others.. Piketty's argument is based on the assumption that, broadly speaking, low income inequality is a desirable trait of a society, and does in fact spend some time going into detail how technology accelerates inequality. His analysis is on how to create a more sustainable society in light of this.
- Terr_ 9y ago
  Here's my snarky interpretation. First, this is where a lot of people lose interest or get turned away: > As a person who is extremely intelligent and eloquent, I am sure this post will be downvoted by my peers who are threatened by my conclusions and wit. In fact, I have a very cohesive argument, which I am about to show you. The argument will relate two things. You will then agree that my argument has merit, because it is very well made. Then a few sentences hidden in the middle, long after people have written it off as a rambling diatribe: > Capitalism, like a computer, is a tool, and the most intelligent and capable humans make the best use of tools for the most reward. I've heard of rags-to-riches stories. Therefore capitalism must rewards intelligence and capability, not accumulated capital. Unfortunately these aren't susceptible to skimming to the end, because they're bookended with: > This means Picketty is wrong and I've e-mailed him many times because my cause is just and righteous. In fact, the emails I wrote are an even more graceful and devastating critique than the argument I just gave you, with rigorous graphs and charts.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    Thanks for the criticism. I've removed most of the bookends and reference to any external resource and left just the "few sentences hidden in the middle" which people can read or ignore. I don't think your summary of it is perfect, but close enough, you read me fine. thanks for the constructive feedback. (not sarcastic.)
metaphorm 9y ago
I didn't downvote you, because I appreciate the effort you put in to your post. However, I think I have some insight into why your post has received some downvotes. First, you're using some poorly defined terminology that seems to cater to your implicit biases. What, exactly, do you mean by "smart people" and "dumb people"? Second, you have some arguments here that seem like non-sequiturs. What does it matter that Elon Musk slept at his office? Does a janitor get bonus points for sleeping in the broom closet instead of at his apartment? Third, the doubt you're raising about self-made billionaires is off topic. That is an interesting phenomenon in it's own right but isn't something Piketty wrote about because it wasn't the topic of his research. Fourth, your own personal correspondence with Piketty is irrelevant and a distraction. It signals (to us, I suppose) that you care a lot about this topic. The fact that you care a lot doesn't help make your arguments more persuasive. Finally, the tone of your post here is filled with appeals to emotion, exasperation, and frustration. You're having trouble making cogent arguments because you seem to be heavily invested in your own feelings about this subject. Those feelings are fine, and natural, but they do not make for a cogent argument. There is no point in attempting to persuade others that you are correct by mentioning that you really care a lot and have a lot of emotional investment in the subject.
- logicallee 9y ago
  Okay, I have a few minutes to expand. I cleared up one point of confusion by editing my original comment - I did not mean that my comment was bitter (it's not) but rather that the reality it describes is bitter. I've read through your points and I don't feel it will be a productive use of our time to engage further. However, I will make one last very brief summary in the most rigorous possible logical terms. If owning a computer gives unequal personal utility to people, then if everyone owns a personal computer, people will have unequal personal utility. The world won't be "fair." Now if instead of "personal utility" you substitute "creation of wealth" and for the computer you substitute all of the wheels of American capitalism, you will see that if everyone has the same access, but due to differing skills and interests differing results, then the world will be unfair. There is no way to make it fair except by shutting off the wheels of capitalism (in the proxy argument, there is no way to make sure everyone has the same level of utility except by taking away everyone's computer). I'm sorry, this is a fully rigorous argument, not at all emotional, and I'm just not prepared to invest any more time in explaining it. I did my best. Sorry if we disagree.
reckoner2 9y ago
> Here is a question Piketty didn't ask: what percent of dynastic, billionaire wealth was created in a single generation in America? Not addressed at all. (And I read his book and wrote to him with my criticism, which he didn't reply to.) Actually he has addressed this, and the answer is relatively little. Most wealth in the world is passed down from one generation to the next, growing at a rate faster than the economy in general. Many of the richest families in the world from centuries ago are still the richest families. Other than in small pockets of the world, like silicon valley, new money is pretty rare.
- logicallee 9y ago
  But I specifically asked about small pockets of the world, like silicon valley. Specifically, I asked about billionaire wealth in the United States.

jackmott 9y ago

it isn't at all clear what your point is.

logicallee 9y ago
[I've removed this comment.]
- taway_1212 9y ago
  I think people downvote you because your post had a zombo.com feel to it - it talks on and on about how great and to the point it is, with the actual point being rather hard to find. My reading is that your whole argument is this paragraph: > Here is a question Piketty didn't ask: what percent of dynastic, billionaire wealth was created in a single generation in America? I think it's a fair point, IIRC it was also raised during EconTalk discussion with Piketty (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/09/thomas_piketty.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/09/thomas_piketty.html).
  - logicallee 9y ago
    [I've removed this comment. I have nothing to reply to the reply to it.]
    - totalrobe 9y ago
      Your "argument" is not as profound as you think. Since humans have been on this earth, some are obviously more successful using technology than others. Also, some are better at communication than others.. Piketty's argument is based on the assumption that, broadly speaking, low income inequality is a desirable trait of a society, and does in fact spend some time going into detail how technology accelerates inequality. His analysis is on how to create a more sustainable society in light of this.
Terr_ 9y ago
Here's my snarky interpretation. First, this is where a lot of people lose interest or get turned away: > As a person who is extremely intelligent and eloquent, I am sure this post will be downvoted by my peers who are threatened by my conclusions and wit. In fact, I have a very cohesive argument, which I am about to show you. The argument will relate two things. You will then agree that my argument has merit, because it is very well made. Then a few sentences hidden in the middle, long after people have written it off as a rambling diatribe: > Capitalism, like a computer, is a tool, and the most intelligent and capable humans make the best use of tools for the most reward. I've heard of rags-to-riches stories. Therefore capitalism must rewards intelligence and capability, not accumulated capital. Unfortunately these aren't susceptible to skimming to the end, because they're bookended with: > This means Picketty is wrong and I've e-mailed him many times because my cause is just and righteous. In fact, the emails I wrote are an even more graceful and devastating critique than the argument I just gave you, with rigorous graphs and charts.
- logicallee 9y ago
  Thanks for the criticism. I've removed most of the bookends and reference to any external resource and left just the "few sentences hidden in the middle" which people can read or ignore. I don't think your summary of it is perfect, but close enough, you read me fine. thanks for the constructive feedback. (not sarcastic.)

metaphorm 9y ago

I didn't downvote you, because I appreciate the effort you put in to your post. However, I think I have some insight into why your post has received some downvotes. First, you're using some poorly defined terminology that seems to cater to your implicit biases. What, exactly, do you mean by "smart people" and "dumb people"? Second, you have some arguments here that seem like non-sequiturs. What does it matter that Elon Musk slept at his office? Does a janitor get bonus points for sleeping in the broom closet instead of at his apartment? Third, the doubt you're raising about self-made billionaires is off topic. That is an interesting phenomenon in it's own right but isn't something Piketty wrote about because it wasn't the topic of his research. Fourth, your own personal correspondence with Piketty is irrelevant and a distraction. It signals (to us, I suppose) that you care a lot about this topic. The fact that you care a lot doesn't help make your arguments more persuasive. Finally, the tone of your post here is filled with appeals to emotion, exasperation, and frustration. You're having trouble making cogent arguments because you seem to be heavily invested in your own feelings about this subject. Those feelings are fine, and natural, but they do not make for a cogent argument. There is no point in attempting to persuade others that you are correct by mentioning that you really care a lot and have a lot of emotional investment in the subject.

logicallee 9y ago
Okay, I have a few minutes to expand. I cleared up one point of confusion by editing my original comment - I did not mean that my comment was bitter (it's not) but rather that the reality it describes is bitter. I've read through your points and I don't feel it will be a productive use of our time to engage further. However, I will make one last very brief summary in the most rigorous possible logical terms. If owning a computer gives unequal personal utility to people, then if everyone owns a personal computer, people will have unequal personal utility. The world won't be "fair." Now if instead of "personal utility" you substitute "creation of wealth" and for the computer you substitute all of the wheels of American capitalism, you will see that if everyone has the same access, but due to differing skills and interests differing results, then the world will be unfair. There is no way to make it fair except by shutting off the wheels of capitalism (in the proxy argument, there is no way to make sure everyone has the same level of utility except by taking away everyone's computer). I'm sorry, this is a fully rigorous argument, not at all emotional, and I'm just not prepared to invest any more time in explaining it. I did my best. Sorry if we disagree.

reckoner2 9y ago

> Here is a question Piketty didn't ask: what percent of dynastic, billionaire wealth was created in a single generation in America? Not addressed at all. (And I read his book and wrote to him with my criticism, which he didn't reply to.) Actually he has addressed this, and the answer is relatively little. Most wealth in the world is passed down from one generation to the next, growing at a rate faster than the economy in general. Many of the richest families in the world from centuries ago are still the richest families. Other than in small pockets of the world, like silicon valley, new money is pretty rare.

logicallee 9y ago
But I specifically asked about small pockets of the world, like silicon valley. Specifically, I asked about billionaire wealth in the United States.