5 ms·

I'm currently working my way through Capital in the Twenty-First Century. It's been really eye-opening about how bad inequality actually is. I suggest everyone

I'm currently working my way through Capital in the Twenty-First Century. It's been really eye-opening about how bad inequality actually is. I suggest everyone read it, and I'm excited to read his new one soon after.

hardtke 7y ago
The thing I took away from Capital in the Twenty-First Century was his conjecture that the post-WWII (until about 1990) period was one of the few times in history that prosperity was widely shared with workers. The era that I consider to be normal (since I lived it) is in fact very abnormal.
- _0ffh 7y ago
  Yeah, I realised that too at some point. And I immediately formed a (maybe obvious) hypothesis about the timing.
  - bart_spoon 7y ago
    I'm assuming you don't mean communism? Because even in the book he is fairly down on communism/socialism. It seemed to me the more likely (and unpleasant) hypothesis is that war/nationalism generates growth like nothing else. When the threat of war looms and patriotism is high, government investment in technology and society is also high, and corporations are more likely to be invested in their home country rather than spreading across international boundaries looking for the best ROI. And the rapid succession of WWI/WWII/Cold War basically ensured that environment existed for decades.
    - _0ffh 7y ago
      Somewhat. The hypothesis was that the end of the cold war meant that a big incentive to make the common people in the west feel good about their affiliation suddenly vanished. Competition is good for the customer, after all.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Normal or abnormal it's worth thinking about about the conditions that make it arise and how to support that condition of more widely shared prosperity - otherwise I think we get stuck in a local optimization peak or worse imho.
- pyb 7y ago
  pg makes a similar argument here : http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html
- ivankirigin 7y ago
  That time in history when the production capacity of the entire world was crushed, millions were killed, and a free trade regime dominated. It's insane to call this normal, but that's a routine comparison.
defterGoose 7y ago
The narrative about capital providing opportunity for many is largely a myth IMHO. While this may have been true when companies reinvested in their products and people, in the age of stock buybacks and leveraged takeovers, capital seems to serve more as simply a tool for accumulation; permanently removing value from the economy for the benefit of a very few.
- lifty 7y ago
  That's why I don't like to call the current system capitalism. I find Varoufakis' description more apt: socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Or put in another way, privatised gains and socialised losses.
  - jmilloy 7y ago
    I think I understand what "socialism for the rich" is supposed to mean, but I don't understand how it relates to socialism. > Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. [wikipedia]
    - lossolo 7y ago
      Or put in another way = socialised losses
simonh 7y ago
It's a fascinating book and deservedly highly influential, but please also read some of the rebuttals and counter-points for a good understanding of the issues.
- tomesco 7y ago
  Could you please share any you recommend?
  - rsync 7y ago
    I think this one is even-handed and generally well-regarded: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/24/book-review-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/24/book-review-capital-in...
- worik 7y ago
  The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable. It may be possible to claim that inequality does not matter. In the absence of poverty that may be possible, but when the richest country in the world (USA) has a health system that leas out ~20% of the population and one of the poorest (Cuba) has a gold plated health system, that is a hard claim to make.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable. There's a really easy refutation of that point: it is literally impossible over any major span of time, because r is a component of g. If r were to grow systematically faster than g, it would end up dominating everything else, with the result that g = r.
    - worik 7y ago
      But economies do not follow uninterrupted tracks. r>g is unstable, and it will collapse. It should have collapsed in 2008, but capitalism is very resilient and capitalists very resourceful and they persuaded the victims to pay the costs. Perhaps it will not survive the current pandemic, I fail to see how it can survive the looming environmental collapse, but time will tell. (By "it" I mean a economic system with r>g)

hardtke 7y ago

The thing I took away from Capital in the Twenty-First Century was his conjecture that the post-WWII (until about 1990) period was one of the few times in history that prosperity was widely shared with workers. The era that I consider to be normal (since I lived it) is in fact very abnormal.

_0ffh 7y ago
Yeah, I realised that too at some point. And I immediately formed a (maybe obvious) hypothesis about the timing.
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  I'm assuming you don't mean communism? Because even in the book he is fairly down on communism/socialism. It seemed to me the more likely (and unpleasant) hypothesis is that war/nationalism generates growth like nothing else. When the threat of war looms and patriotism is high, government investment in technology and society is also high, and corporations are more likely to be invested in their home country rather than spreading across international boundaries looking for the best ROI. And the rapid succession of WWI/WWII/Cold War basically ensured that environment existed for decades.
  - _0ffh 7y ago
    Somewhat. The hypothesis was that the end of the cold war meant that a big incentive to make the common people in the west feel good about their affiliation suddenly vanished. Competition is good for the customer, after all.
dv_dt 7y ago
Normal or abnormal it's worth thinking about about the conditions that make it arise and how to support that condition of more widely shared prosperity - otherwise I think we get stuck in a local optimization peak or worse imho.
pyb 7y ago
pg makes a similar argument here : http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html
ivankirigin 7y ago
That time in history when the production capacity of the entire world was crushed, millions were killed, and a free trade regime dominated. It's insane to call this normal, but that's a routine comparison.

defterGoose 7y ago

The narrative about capital providing opportunity for many is largely a myth IMHO. While this may have been true when companies reinvested in their products and people, in the age of stock buybacks and leveraged takeovers, capital seems to serve more as simply a tool for accumulation; permanently removing value from the economy for the benefit of a very few.

lifty 7y ago
That's why I don't like to call the current system capitalism. I find Varoufakis' description more apt: socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Or put in another way, privatised gains and socialised losses.
- jmilloy 7y ago
  I think I understand what "socialism for the rich" is supposed to mean, but I don't understand how it relates to socialism. > Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. [wikipedia]
  - lossolo 7y ago
    Or put in another way = socialised losses

simonh 7y ago

It's a fascinating book and deservedly highly influential, but please also read some of the rebuttals and counter-points for a good understanding of the issues.

tomesco 7y ago
Could you please share any you recommend?
- rsync 7y ago
  I think this one is even-handed and generally well-regarded: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/24/book-review-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/24/book-review-capital-in...
worik 7y ago
The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable. It may be possible to claim that inequality does not matter. In the absence of poverty that may be possible, but when the richest country in the world (USA) has a health system that leas out ~20% of the population and one of the poorest (Cuba) has a gold plated health system, that is a hard claim to make.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > The fundamental point (r>g) is irrefutable. There's a really easy refutation of that point: it is literally impossible over any major span of time, because r is a component of g. If r were to grow systematically faster than g, it would end up dominating everything else, with the result that g = r.
  - worik 7y ago
    But economies do not follow uninterrupted tracks. r>g is unstable, and it will collapse. It should have collapsed in 2008, but capitalism is very resilient and capitalists very resourceful and they persuaded the victims to pay the costs. Perhaps it will not survive the current pandemic, I fail to see how it can survive the looming environmental collapse, but time will tell. (By "it" I mean a economic system with r>g)