4 ms·

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

by jackmott 9y ago

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.)

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.)