6 ms·

He is a very keen observer. Yet he argues capitalism needs reform because it could lead to real conflict between people in a country and not because it is unfai

He is a very keen observer. Yet he argues capitalism needs reform because it could lead to real conflict between people in a country and not because it is unfair. He wants to be safe, so do I, but I'm not a hedge fund billionaire. I want societal change because every human has a worth and seeing inequality among equals makes me sad.

jessaustin 8y ago
Piketty has argued persuasively that conflict, chaos, and tumult are historically among the primary drivers of equality. It's no surprise the billionaires don't want any of that! Someone more conspiracy-minded than myself might suggest that this is why the wealthy support all these high-expense low-payoff wars in distant lands, to use up all the fighters who would more properly be home rearranging this society toward more equal circumstances.
- aristophenes 8y ago
  That's true, if we are all dirt poor and struggling just to survive we would be more equal. If that's what you want. Is equality the ultimate good?
  - thundergolfer 8y ago
    You say "that's true", and then the rest of your comment has nothing to do with what they said. The idea that people are advocating for any kind of equalisation that would leave us all poor is a lazy strawman.
    - aristophenes 8y ago
      > Piketty has argued persuasively that conflict, chaos, and tumult are historically among the primary drivers of equality. > fighters who would more properly be home rearranging this society toward more equal circumstances. My understanding was that the poster was implying that conflict, chaos, and tumult would promote equality. I agreed that I thought it would, but implied that it wasn't worth it. I'd take an unequal society where more people are prosperous, over an equal one where everyone is equally miserable. It seems to me there is a growing percentage of the public that want to throw it all away and start over, but I'd point out that for most of human history, most everywhere in the world, most people where either struggling to survive or living as slaves of someone or another. Neither is the case now, we're doing something right and I think a lot of people are just spoiled with how good it's been.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        A lot of KPIs are still pointing up, but over the last several decades more and more are pointing down. (Since you mention slavery, we have to admit that there are more slaves in e.g. Libya than there were a decade ago.) When does the frog jump out of the pot? The answer might be subjective, but it probably relates to wealth.
zarkov99 8y ago
It is much easier to persuade people from varying ideological bents to do something about this problem if its discussed in terms of objective harm, rather than subjective assessments of fairness.
blihp 8y ago
He knows his target audience. One generally becomes a billionaire by focusing on self-interest, not altruism.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Yet he argues capitalism needs reform because it could lead to real conflict between people in a country and not because it is unfair. Which is likely a more effective argument to the ruling elite than fairness: To quote Heinlein’s Lazarus Long: Never appeal to a man’s “better nature.” He may not have one. Invoking self-interest gives you more leverage. > He wants to be safe, so do I, but I'm not a hedge fund billionaire An economic revolution may target the wealthy, but revolutions are rarely conducted without substantial collateral damage (and harm to the revolutionaries themselves, which is why it takes more than a little transitory pain to provoke them.)

jessaustin 8y ago

Piketty has argued persuasively that conflict, chaos, and tumult are historically among the primary drivers of equality. It's no surprise the billionaires don't want any of that! Someone more conspiracy-minded than myself might suggest that this is why the wealthy support all these high-expense low-payoff wars in distant lands, to use up all the fighters who would more properly be home rearranging this society toward more equal circumstances.

aristophenes 8y ago
That's true, if we are all dirt poor and struggling just to survive we would be more equal. If that's what you want. Is equality the ultimate good?
- thundergolfer 8y ago
  You say "that's true", and then the rest of your comment has nothing to do with what they said. The idea that people are advocating for any kind of equalisation that would leave us all poor is a lazy strawman.
  - aristophenes 8y ago
    > Piketty has argued persuasively that conflict, chaos, and tumult are historically among the primary drivers of equality. > fighters who would more properly be home rearranging this society toward more equal circumstances. My understanding was that the poster was implying that conflict, chaos, and tumult would promote equality. I agreed that I thought it would, but implied that it wasn't worth it. I'd take an unequal society where more people are prosperous, over an equal one where everyone is equally miserable. It seems to me there is a growing percentage of the public that want to throw it all away and start over, but I'd point out that for most of human history, most everywhere in the world, most people where either struggling to survive or living as slaves of someone or another. Neither is the case now, we're doing something right and I think a lot of people are just spoiled with how good it's been.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      A lot of KPIs are still pointing up, but over the last several decades more and more are pointing down. (Since you mention slavery, we have to admit that there are more slaves in e.g. Libya than there were a decade ago.) When does the frog jump out of the pot? The answer might be subjective, but it probably relates to wealth.

zarkov99 8y ago

It is much easier to persuade people from varying ideological bents to do something about this problem if its discussed in terms of objective harm, rather than subjective assessments of fairness.

blihp 8y ago

He knows his target audience. One generally becomes a billionaire by focusing on self-interest, not altruism.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Yet he argues capitalism needs reform because it could lead to real conflict between people in a country and not because it is unfair. Which is likely a more effective argument to the ruling elite than fairness: To quote Heinlein’s Lazarus Long: Never appeal to a man’s “better nature.” He may not have one. Invoking self-interest gives you more leverage. > He wants to be safe, so do I, but I'm not a hedge fund billionaire An economic revolution may target the wealthy, but revolutions are rarely conducted without substantial collateral damage (and harm to the revolutionaries themselves, which is why it takes more than a little transitory pain to provoke them.)