2 ms·

>> Your point is not a refutation "there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made" That's a refutation, Piketty made asse

>> Your point is not a refutation "there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made" That's a refutation, Piketty made assertions not just about the outcome, but about the process by which that outcome would happen.

smallmancontrov 2y ago
So long as rich-get-richer mechanics play out inside of a single generation they are unquestionably OK? What even is this argument?
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  he didn't say it's ok. He said piketty is wrong. Anyone who studied even econ 101 and combined it with a teaspoon of common sense knows piketty is an idiot and that book is garbage. He's a politician.
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    No, inheritance isn't the only dubious method of accumulation that Piketty described. Try again.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      Maybe actually take econ 101 so you can get the thrust of the book rather than getting lost in the details. His thesis, in that book, is that r > g and that over many years that difference results in very large accumulations of wealth. No one disputes that there are various means that r is achieved. It doesn't change the thesis, which is wrong. r is not greater than g for any reasonable amount of time for individuals/families because humans have an amazing ability to behave stupidly and reduce r below g.
Rury 2y ago
Explain your argument because it's not at all clear to me. I do not see how that statement refutes the arguments the above poster gave.
- tesch1 2y ago
  They're saying that self-made billionaires didn't inherit their wealth. Which means they created it. Which means that it created useful economic activity. And since rich people dont optimally pass on their wealth, those 1000 billionaires' spawn are likely to piss away that wealth while 1000 more economically active individuals create more healthy economic activity in pursuit of becoming billionaires so that they can pass on their wealth to their children to piss away, ad. Inf.
  - Rury 2y ago
    If that's the argument, then it sounds pretty flawed TBH. I mean how does not inheriting their wealth, automatically mean they created it? Is theft not also a possibility?
  - ludicrousdispla 2y ago
    The billionaires' spawn pissing their wealth away would likely generate a lot of economic activity.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  Piketty’s argument was not just that income inequality would increase, but that it would increase because the return on capital is greater than the growth rate of the economy, so, in his words, "It is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labor by a wide margin". But inherited wealth does not dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labor. The largest fortunes today are dominated by people who built businesses, not by people who inherited their wealth. So if "there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made", that is a direct refutation of Pikkety's thesis. It is hard to overstate just how bad Pikkety's arguments are. His argument assumes single inheritance of fortunes, it assumes that wealthy people don't donate significant sums to charity, it assumes that inheritors of wealth will invest that wealth as wisely as the person who created it, along with many, many other false assumptions. The most egregious one in my opinion is that it assumes the wealthy don't spend their money. If a billionaire makes a 5% return on his billion dollars and spends $50 million dollars a year, does wealth inequality increase? No, it does not. It's a ridiculous theory, it is directly contradicted by the facts, and I have no idea why it is taken seriously by people here other than just as an opportunity to participate in a 2 minutes hate against rich people.

smallmancontrov 2y ago

So long as rich-get-richer mechanics play out inside of a single generation they are unquestionably OK? What even is this argument?

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
he didn't say it's ok. He said piketty is wrong. Anyone who studied even econ 101 and combined it with a teaspoon of common sense knows piketty is an idiot and that book is garbage. He's a politician.
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  No, inheritance isn't the only dubious method of accumulation that Piketty described. Try again.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    Maybe actually take econ 101 so you can get the thrust of the book rather than getting lost in the details. His thesis, in that book, is that r > g and that over many years that difference results in very large accumulations of wealth. No one disputes that there are various means that r is achieved. It doesn't change the thesis, which is wrong. r is not greater than g for any reasonable amount of time for individuals/families because humans have an amazing ability to behave stupidly and reduce r below g.

Rury 2y ago

Explain your argument because it's not at all clear to me. I do not see how that statement refutes the arguments the above poster gave.

tesch1 2y ago
They're saying that self-made billionaires didn't inherit their wealth. Which means they created it. Which means that it created useful economic activity. And since rich people dont optimally pass on their wealth, those 1000 billionaires' spawn are likely to piss away that wealth while 1000 more economically active individuals create more healthy economic activity in pursuit of becoming billionaires so that they can pass on their wealth to their children to piss away, ad. Inf.
- Rury 2y ago
  If that's the argument, then it sounds pretty flawed TBH. I mean how does not inheriting their wealth, automatically mean they created it? Is theft not also a possibility?
- ludicrousdispla 2y ago
  The billionaires' spawn pissing their wealth away would likely generate a lot of economic activity.
rufus_foreman 2y ago
Piketty’s argument was not just that income inequality would increase, but that it would increase because the return on capital is greater than the growth rate of the economy, so, in his words, "It is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labor by a wide margin". But inherited wealth does not dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labor. The largest fortunes today are dominated by people who built businesses, not by people who inherited their wealth. So if "there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made", that is a direct refutation of Pikkety's thesis. It is hard to overstate just how bad Pikkety's arguments are. His argument assumes single inheritance of fortunes, it assumes that wealthy people don't donate significant sums to charity, it assumes that inheritors of wealth will invest that wealth as wisely as the person who created it, along with many, many other false assumptions. The most egregious one in my opinion is that it assumes the wealthy don't spend their money. If a billionaire makes a 5% return on his billion dollars and spends $50 million dollars a year, does wealth inequality increase? No, it does not. It's a ridiculous theory, it is directly contradicted by the facts, and I have no idea why it is taken seriously by people here other than just as an opportunity to participate in a 2 minutes hate against rich people.