9 ms·

Thomas Piketty’s Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth

51 points by cee_el123 4y ago

cee_el123 4y ago
( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book ) ( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Reduce rent seeking, promote local agriculture university outreach programs, gently trim back on waste, promote competition in stagnated fields. There’s not a radical solution where something bold needs to be done. There’s a lot of mundane progress that needs to be done, but before it’s done it needs to be identified and prioritized.
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    a real attempt to reduce rent seeking would probably lead to civil war.
    - candiddevmike 4y ago
      The feudal lords will call on their bannermen to take up arms via Twitter.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      Reduce, not eliminate. Put pressure though taxes, regulations, etc that benefit people owning things to do stuff with them and penalize people owning things to make money from somebody else doing things with them. Investment will always be an important mechanism, it just needs to be a bit more disadvantaged than it is at the moment. One of the mechanisms is as simple as taxing vacancy. If you own commercial or residential property that isn’t occupied, your taxes go way up to encourage you to drop prices until it gets used or you decide to sell.
    - Aunche 4y ago
      People pay 50% of their income in taxes in states like California without rioting, so I don't see why attempts to reduce rent seeking would be any different. Any income generated from an land value tax is money that can be saved with less efficient forms of taxation. IMO, this has more to do with lack of economic knowledge rather than anything else. People don't realize that making housing affordable completely opposite from making it a good investment.
    - tharne 4y ago
      > a real attempt to reduce rent seeking would probably lead to civil war. Agreed, but a failure to reduce it would probably lead to the same thing eventually.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  Radical solutions elicit radical response, and are rarely warranted. See for example the French Revolution. Millions of unnecessary deaths due to political repression and wars. And then, 80 years after it all started, finally achieving democracy. All because those in charge at any given moment cared more about their ideas than people. If you think we can achieve utopia if only everyone signs on to your wonderful idea, it's a sign that you are not only wrong, but should seriously seek counseling.
- ForHackernews 4y ago
  100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.
  - jkmghkjhg 4y ago
    This wouldn't force the rich to move elsewhere?
    - throwaway1777 4y ago
      It would, so you also need capital controls.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      A living person should want more people to be educated instead of living in poverty because that will increase their own lifespan. A dead person is not capable of caring where their wealth went.
  - cmsonger 4y ago
    I could not agree with this more. It feels like trust fund babies are pretty much everything that the US is not supposed to be about. Whenever I'm in a mood to discuss politics and someone brings up the "death tax" I say something like: "I agree, the world absolutely needs more people like Paris Hilton." (Not to pick on Paris Hilton, but I think that she's a visible example that people resonate with.)
  - flenserboy 4y ago
    The question this brings up is this: instead of making it impossible for families to establish themselves for generations, instead encourage families to think and invest long-term, without having their accumulated experience and wisdom be made meaningless by having their resources stolen from them? Encourage people to have all-around healthy, well-raised children who will (if they so choose) carry on the and develop the family project instead of being, in effect, scattered to the winds. Rather than encouraging people to start public corporations (which are, in our current system, designed to be taken out of the hands of those who build and care for them, then eventually parted out), let's find ways to incentivize families to actually invest in their children and the future, instead of simply in building wealth that will be only temporary while hoping that maybe the kids will do fine. Encourage long-term thinking, planning, and investment by taking away the fear that all this work will be taken away or have to be sold off for taxes.
- shrubble 4y ago
  1. Rule of law / a set of laws that are enforced equally upon all citizens regardless of wealth or social status. 2. Elimination of usury applied to the money supply of the country in question. That is, issuing money without having a central bank charge interest on the issuance. I am sure there are more.
- larsiusprime 4y ago
  Georgist/YIMBYist synthesis with regard to Land Policy + Norwegian natural resource policy (and extending it to all artificial and natural monopolies) https://www.gameofrent.com https://www.gameofrent.com https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-... https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and-future-georgist-kingdom/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and...
xhkkffbf 4y ago
[flagged]
- blurbleblurble 4y ago
  But he didn't do any of that work, he's a grifter and has always been a grifter
  - jhgfjhgfjgh 4y ago
    He works 16 hour days at Tesla and Space X. How is he a grifter?
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  does musk contribute to society, or does he just have a lot of money?
- HarryHirsch 4y ago
  Join us in Alabama, where the 1901 constitution makes it impossible to raise local taxes without going through Congress in Montgomery. The industrialists and cattle barons put that there because they are wealthy enough to secure good infrastructure for themselves, but the rest of the state is left behind. Good luck with Alabama public schools, and many local roads are on a 70-year repaving schedule.
- exabrial 4y ago
  ^ Precisely. To add to your point: In order for something to be unequal, it had to be obtained via unethical means. This is because the sum of morality of small transactions is transitive. Breaking it down in simple terms: If you voluntarily give your free-earned money to Jeff Bezos, it's an ethical transaction. If millions of people do it, they're all ethical transactions. If Jeff Bezos becomes a go-zillionaire, it's moral and ethical. Meaning: If you don't want billionaires in this world, you're free to stop giving them your money at any time.
  - hamandcheese 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ryanschneider 4y ago
http://archive.today/tBPaM http://archive.today/tBPaM
larsiusprime 4y ago
Just want to point out two things: 1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate, while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat. 2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on his interview [2] with Piketty and Piketty essentially conceded the point. Tyler implied therefore that the natural conclusion is Georgism[3] [1] https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall-and-rise-in-the-net-capital-share/ https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall... [2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/thomas-piketty/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/thomas-piketty/ [3] http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal#a-brief-recap http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal#a-brief-rec...
- criticalkoala 4y ago
  - criticalkoala 4y ago
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Georgism just makes more and more sense the more you think about it. The idea that people should be allowed to profit off unimproved land is so clearly immoral, and that’s not to say anything for the efficiency Georgism brings and the amount it would help lower rental costs.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    I don't see how Georgism solves anything. You need a government to enforce taxation - said government is profiting off unimproved land. Said governments colonize and take others land with force.
    - 4y ago
criticalkoala 4y ago
endisneigh 4y ago
Is there a single example in history where income redistribution worked while it was also easy for foreigners to enter the country and growth persisted for everyone while maintaining said ratios of acceptable inequality? - If you don't allow foreigners, I'll argue that you haven't solved anything. You've simple picked the winners. - If the ratio of inequality is disrupted, I'd also argue you haven't done anything other than move the problem (and the losers) to the future. - If you decide not to redistribute, well that's the current situation for better or worse. Personally I think a better problem to solve is for humanity in general to decide what the minimum level of prosperity should be, worldwide and slowly try to raise this bar. AFAIK this is basically what we're doing. We could raise the bar faster, though.
- rgrieselhuber 4y ago
  And who gets to decide what inequality is and why?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Good question - who should? Democratically decided upon I suppose?
    - tharne 4y ago
      That just sounds like a form of mob rule. That's why most democratic countries have some basic rights enshrined in a constitution rather than dependent on the will of the voters.
    - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
      And where do the people get their information to decide?
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Same way people get their information to decide now for anything democratically decided upon?
tschwimmer 4y ago
Piketty always has insightful commentary on the topic and I'll definitely be checking out this book. I think we'll come to recognize that R > G is an important influencer for social stability and long term prosperity. That said, I do wonder if we're looking at inequality (or more specifically hierarchy) through the wrong lens. It seems like almost all independent societies naturally develop some sort of hierarchy (chief, priest, leader) without any outside influence. To me that points to some underlying natural law or at least a biologically-influenced tendency that higher level social constructs will be ineffective at changing.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Have you read The Dawn of Everything?
epgui 4y ago
I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "meritocracy trap". ie.: believing they are mostly where they are because of ability, worthiness or hard work, rather than mostly luck. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
- tharne 4y ago
  I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap". ie.: believing that they are where they are due to vast and well-executed systemic conspiracies rather than mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
  - epgui 4y ago
    The difference between my comment and yours is that the meritocracy trap is a real thing that has been the subject of scholarly works. Also, I speak not from a place of disappointments, but rather from a place of great privilege. I am extremely lucky to be where I am (and yes, I worked hard for it too). For an overview and references, see: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Meritocracy_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Meritocracy_trap
    - twblalock 4y ago
      You are arguing against a strawman here. Nobody claimed we have a perfect meritocracy.
      - epgui 4y ago
        Nobody claimed this directly, but when you boil down most progressive policies to their naked objective, it comes down to redistribution in one form or another, taking from the rich and lifting everyone (most noticeably lifting the poor). Most objections to progressive policies boil down to the idea that the more fortunate people deserve what they have, and that redistribution would make less fortunate people not work as hard. In other words, the world is unfair because of "hand-wavy general incentives". I am aware that second paragraph was not a great steel-man, and there are many variants and nuances of these positions, but generally the implicit assumption is that we have good (I did not say perfect) vertical mobility, when in reality this is not usually the case.
jschveibinz 4y ago
If some entity, be it the government or some other institution, is to take the responsibility of redistributing wealth by any means (taxation, welfare, rent control, etc.), does not that institution then bear the responsibility of determining what is equitable? Does this change over time? And doesn’t that institution also bear the responsibility of the generational social and cultural impacts? Does wealth redistribution reach stasis at a standard of living that is lower than is currently achievable? Does the golden goose eventually stop laying eggs? Social engineering experiments can have many unforeseeable impacts - both good and bad. There is no guarantee that the ultimate results will be better than the starting conditions. Whatever is done, it should be done slowly and under controlled conditions so that the impacts can be measured.
moistly 4y ago
What we have now is obviously not working. We have serious homeless problems involving children. That is plainly the mark of a state that is failing its citizens. There is more wealth around than we have use for (see: space yachts, meme coins, NFTs), so instead of leaving it to slosh around in stupid risky ventures, move it into pro-social infrastructure and health/education support services. There is more than enough wealth abundance to uplift the most disadvantaged while still allowing the wealthiest to live out their fantasies.

51 points by cee_el123 4y ago

( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book ) ( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )

colechristensen 4y ago
Reduce rent seeking, promote local agriculture university outreach programs, gently trim back on waste, promote competition in stagnated fields. There’s not a radical solution where something bold needs to be done. There’s a lot of mundane progress that needs to be done, but before it’s done it needs to be identified and prioritized.
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  a real attempt to reduce rent seeking would probably lead to civil war.
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    The feudal lords will call on their bannermen to take up arms via Twitter.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Reduce, not eliminate. Put pressure though taxes, regulations, etc that benefit people owning things to do stuff with them and penalize people owning things to make money from somebody else doing things with them. Investment will always be an important mechanism, it just needs to be a bit more disadvantaged than it is at the moment. One of the mechanisms is as simple as taxing vacancy. If you own commercial or residential property that isn’t occupied, your taxes go way up to encourage you to drop prices until it gets used or you decide to sell.
  - Aunche 4y ago
    People pay 50% of their income in taxes in states like California without rioting, so I don't see why attempts to reduce rent seeking would be any different. Any income generated from an land value tax is money that can be saved with less efficient forms of taxation. IMO, this has more to do with lack of economic knowledge rather than anything else. People don't realize that making housing affordable completely opposite from making it a good investment.
  - tharne 4y ago
    > a real attempt to reduce rent seeking would probably lead to civil war. Agreed, but a failure to reduce it would probably lead to the same thing eventually.
tomohawk 4y ago
Radical solutions elicit radical response, and are rarely warranted. See for example the French Revolution. Millions of unnecessary deaths due to political repression and wars. And then, 80 years after it all started, finally achieving democracy. All because those in charge at any given moment cared more about their ideas than people. If you think we can achieve utopia if only everyone signs on to your wonderful idea, it's a sign that you are not only wrong, but should seriously seek counseling.
ForHackernews 4y ago
100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.
- jkmghkjhg 4y ago
  This wouldn't force the rich to move elsewhere?
  - throwaway1777 4y ago
    It would, so you also need capital controls.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    A living person should want more people to be educated instead of living in poverty because that will increase their own lifespan. A dead person is not capable of caring where their wealth went.
- cmsonger 4y ago
  I could not agree with this more. It feels like trust fund babies are pretty much everything that the US is not supposed to be about. Whenever I'm in a mood to discuss politics and someone brings up the "death tax" I say something like: "I agree, the world absolutely needs more people like Paris Hilton." (Not to pick on Paris Hilton, but I think that she's a visible example that people resonate with.)
- flenserboy 4y ago
  The question this brings up is this: instead of making it impossible for families to establish themselves for generations, instead encourage families to think and invest long-term, without having their accumulated experience and wisdom be made meaningless by having their resources stolen from them? Encourage people to have all-around healthy, well-raised children who will (if they so choose) carry on the and develop the family project instead of being, in effect, scattered to the winds. Rather than encouraging people to start public corporations (which are, in our current system, designed to be taken out of the hands of those who build and care for them, then eventually parted out), let's find ways to incentivize families to actually invest in their children and the future, instead of simply in building wealth that will be only temporary while hoping that maybe the kids will do fine. Encourage long-term thinking, planning, and investment by taking away the fear that all this work will be taken away or have to be sold off for taxes.
shrubble 4y ago
1. Rule of law / a set of laws that are enforced equally upon all citizens regardless of wealth or social status. 2. Elimination of usury applied to the money supply of the country in question. That is, issuing money without having a central bank charge interest on the issuance. I am sure there are more.
larsiusprime 4y ago
Georgist/YIMBYist synthesis with regard to Land Policy + Norwegian natural resource policy (and extending it to all artificial and natural monopolies) https://www.gameofrent.com https://www.gameofrent.com https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-... https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and-future-georgist-kingdom/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and...

xhkkffbf 4y ago

[flagged]

blurbleblurble 4y ago
But he didn't do any of that work, he's a grifter and has always been a grifter
- jhgfjhgfjgh 4y ago
  He works 16 hour days at Tesla and Space X. How is he a grifter?
pasquinelli 4y ago
does musk contribute to society, or does he just have a lot of money?
HarryHirsch 4y ago
Join us in Alabama, where the 1901 constitution makes it impossible to raise local taxes without going through Congress in Montgomery. The industrialists and cattle barons put that there because they are wealthy enough to secure good infrastructure for themselves, but the rest of the state is left behind. Good luck with Alabama public schools, and many local roads are on a 70-year repaving schedule.
exabrial 4y ago
^ Precisely. To add to your point: In order for something to be unequal, it had to be obtained via unethical means. This is because the sum of morality of small transactions is transitive. Breaking it down in simple terms: If you voluntarily give your free-earned money to Jeff Bezos, it's an ethical transaction. If millions of people do it, they're all ethical transactions. If Jeff Bezos becomes a go-zillionaire, it's moral and ethical. Meaning: If you don't want billionaires in this world, you're free to stop giving them your money at any time.
- hamandcheese 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ryanschneider 4y ago

http://archive.today/tBPaM http://archive.today/tBPaM

larsiusprime 4y ago

Just want to point out two things: 1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate, while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat. 2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on his interview [2] with Piketty and Piketty essentially conceded the point. Tyler implied therefore that the natural conclusion is Georgism[3] [1] https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall-and-rise-in-the-net-capital-share/ https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall... [2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/thomas-piketty/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/thomas-piketty/ [3] http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal#a-brief-recap http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal#a-brief-rec...

criticalkoala 4y ago
- criticalkoala 4y ago
colinmhayes 4y ago
Georgism just makes more and more sense the more you think about it. The idea that people should be allowed to profit off unimproved land is so clearly immoral, and that’s not to say anything for the efficiency Georgism brings and the amount it would help lower rental costs.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  I don't see how Georgism solves anything. You need a government to enforce taxation - said government is profiting off unimproved land. Said governments colonize and take others land with force.
  - 4y ago

criticalkoala 4y ago

endisneigh 4y ago

Is there a single example in history where income redistribution worked while it was also easy for foreigners to enter the country and growth persisted for everyone while maintaining said ratios of acceptable inequality? - If you don't allow foreigners, I'll argue that you haven't solved anything. You've simple picked the winners. - If the ratio of inequality is disrupted, I'd also argue you haven't done anything other than move the problem (and the losers) to the future. - If you decide not to redistribute, well that's the current situation for better or worse. Personally I think a better problem to solve is for humanity in general to decide what the minimum level of prosperity should be, worldwide and slowly try to raise this bar. AFAIK this is basically what we're doing. We could raise the bar faster, though.

rgrieselhuber 4y ago
And who gets to decide what inequality is and why?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Good question - who should? Democratically decided upon I suppose?
  - tharne 4y ago
    That just sounds like a form of mob rule. That's why most democratic countries have some basic rights enshrined in a constitution rather than dependent on the will of the voters.
  - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
    And where do the people get their information to decide?
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Same way people get their information to decide now for anything democratically decided upon?

tschwimmer 4y ago

Piketty always has insightful commentary on the topic and I'll definitely be checking out this book. I think we'll come to recognize that R > G is an important influencer for social stability and long term prosperity. That said, I do wonder if we're looking at inequality (or more specifically hierarchy) through the wrong lens. It seems like almost all independent societies naturally develop some sort of hierarchy (chief, priest, leader) without any outside influence. To me that points to some underlying natural law or at least a biologically-influenced tendency that higher level social constructs will be ineffective at changing.

wizofaus 4y ago
Have you read The Dawn of Everything?

epgui 4y ago

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "meritocracy trap". ie.: believing they are mostly where they are because of ability, worthiness or hard work, rather than mostly luck. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

tharne 4y ago
I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap". ie.: believing that they are where they are due to vast and well-executed systemic conspiracies rather than mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
- epgui 4y ago
  The difference between my comment and yours is that the meritocracy trap is a real thing that has been the subject of scholarly works. Also, I speak not from a place of disappointments, but rather from a place of great privilege. I am extremely lucky to be where I am (and yes, I worked hard for it too). For an overview and references, see: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Meritocracy_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Meritocracy_trap
  - twblalock 4y ago
    You are arguing against a strawman here. Nobody claimed we have a perfect meritocracy.
    - epgui 4y ago
      Nobody claimed this directly, but when you boil down most progressive policies to their naked objective, it comes down to redistribution in one form or another, taking from the rich and lifting everyone (most noticeably lifting the poor). Most objections to progressive policies boil down to the idea that the more fortunate people deserve what they have, and that redistribution would make less fortunate people not work as hard. In other words, the world is unfair because of "hand-wavy general incentives". I am aware that second paragraph was not a great steel-man, and there are many variants and nuances of these positions, but generally the implicit assumption is that we have good (I did not say perfect) vertical mobility, when in reality this is not usually the case.

jschveibinz 4y ago

If some entity, be it the government or some other institution, is to take the responsibility of redistributing wealth by any means (taxation, welfare, rent control, etc.), does not that institution then bear the responsibility of determining what is equitable? Does this change over time? And doesn’t that institution also bear the responsibility of the generational social and cultural impacts? Does wealth redistribution reach stasis at a standard of living that is lower than is currently achievable? Does the golden goose eventually stop laying eggs? Social engineering experiments can have many unforeseeable impacts - both good and bad. There is no guarantee that the ultimate results will be better than the starting conditions. Whatever is done, it should be done slowly and under controlled conditions so that the impacts can be measured.

moistly 4y ago

What we have now is obviously not working. We have serious homeless problems involving children. That is plainly the mark of a state that is failing its citizens. There is more wealth around than we have use for (see: space yachts, meme coins, NFTs), so instead of leaving it to slosh around in stupid risky ventures, move it into pro-social infrastructure and health/education support services. There is more than enough wealth abundance to uplift the most disadvantaged while still allowing the wealthiest to live out their fantasies.