This is the only relevant economics book today. Prove me wrong

This is the only relevant economics book today. Prove me wrong.

The only counter-argument is
>b-but socialism (meaning anything but a free-market extremism) is a slavery

Other urls found in this thread:

ft.com/content/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0
nytimes.com/2014/05/30/upshot/thomas-piketty-responds-to-criticism-of-his-data.html
taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
youtube.com/watch?v=wNLPO2j9RQ0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>>b-but socialism (meaning anything but a free-market extremism) is a slavery

Early National Socialism was the way to go, before the reptillian ayys infriltrated it.
>muh autobahn
>muh volkswagen

he faked data and passed it off as real
ft.com/content/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0

He made a 10 page response to this:
nytimes.com/2014/05/30/upshot/thomas-piketty-responds-to-criticism-of-his-data.html

>French ''''people''''
>worth listening to at all

Your whole country got cucked by French.

>Fake statistics
>muh greater inequality
>shilled non stop by the UN
Suuuure thing bro.

>Anything that increases GDP is good

Care to explain why inequality is a bad thing? Because Piketty didn't.

Saged.

>Because Piketty didn't.
It's obvious you didn't read it. Inequality is a threat to democracy and capitalism itself. That's the whole point of his book, you moron.

>freedom is a threat to freedom goys

The greatest cuck ever lived. Hope he gets forgotten

And how's unlimited accumulation of capital is (((freedom)))? Freedom for who? For (((G-d chosen))) few?

The entire book is written on the assumption that inequality is an inherently bad thing and at no point does he bother to explain why it is a bad thing. He just assumes that it is and then proceeds to tell us the results of it under said assumption. Piketty is a hack, there is little surprise he's a French economist. There is also little surprise that the ruski is supporting an inherently anti-democratic and communistic idea of global redistribution of wealth. Your nation collapsed because of the idea. Let it go.

>(((democracy and capitalism)))

Its the only economic text relevant to leftists because they are full retard on economics

How do you enforce equality which is unnatural and doesnt happen if not by force?
Does it hurt your anus so much that people have more than you do or is it just that you realize that you lack the abilities to do so?

Piketty is retarded

progress should be measured as a ratio of techonological capability to population+resource amount

>when liberty, liberalism, and freedom completely and unequivocally refers to money
Gg, goys.

>genocide creates progress

Common core math caused your idiocy

Name at least one credible right-wing economist. You can't. I can name a lot of left-wing economists though (or at least not crazy right-wingers): Krugman, Gruber, Stiglitz, Sachs, Samuelson, etc.

>How do you enforce equality which is unnatural and doesnt happen if not by force?
You do know what progressive taxation is?

>Does it hurt your anus so much that people have more than you do or is it just that you realize that you lack the abilities to do so?
Oy vey, don't touch our precious piles of gold, goyim!

inequality itself isnt a bad thing
but when top 1% has more than 50% of wealth while millions live in extreme poverty - is that ok?

>krugman
>credible

Even your ID is pink, holy shit.

>You do know what progressive taxation is?
Yes and I know that its been destroying civilizations since Rome.

>the solution to all world's problem is to give (((government))) even more money and allow them to rape you even harder
This is why helicopter rides should be in the constitution.

These economists have failed to turn out a useful, falsifiable theory despite 50 years of well-funded research. See: Laffer Curve, Phillips Curve for two good examples.

Most Macro economics is bullshit. Micro economics gets close to describing the real world and is useful if you run a business.

As for credible right wing economist: in the present day, Mankiw.

Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell

>Your nation collapsed because of the idea
Why you, westerners, keep repeating this idea knowing basically nothing what USSR was and what Russia is now.

>Yes and I know that its been destroying civilizations since Rome.
>source: my ass
>also tfw progressive taxation was the norm during the most prosperous period in european history 1950's-1970's

>what Russia is now

A gas station with a flag on top. Also poverty and snow

>Yes and I know that its been destroying civilizations since Rome.
[citation needed]

>the solution to all world's problem is to give (((government))) even more money and allow them to rape you even harder
Nice strawman. Obviously if you stop being paranoid and broaden your vision, you'll see that it works nicely, see Scandinavia.

Neo-keynsian? Right-wing? Is my eye-sight that bad?

Alright, I'll assume Friedman is credible, but Sowell is a sociologist at best.

Thanks to (((neoliberals))) you fucks brought to us.

> A gas station with a flag
At least it's a Russian flag and not a Paki flag

Ok. Seems you know smth, and tell me how did we come to that?

>Emperor Maximinus declares all of rich people's wealth is the state's
>Emperors from there on use the same tactic.
Well I guess its not progressive enough for you.

Nobody trusts the field of economics anymore to turn out useful theories. All of their studies prove what we know: that there is inequality, and that the system is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful. This has been a known fact of life from feudal times.

> He argued that many of the things that The Financial Times identified as sloppy or arbitrary were in fact considered choices, which he explained in footnotes. Reasonable people might disagree with some of his choices of how to handle the data, he says. But even where there’s room for debate, any reasonable changes to his methodology would be small and not alter the broad conclusions, he suggested.

So he's saying "yes, I faked the data for the sake of my argument"

>all of rich people's wealth is the state's
>this is the same as progressive taxation
kys

Similar to China: a lack of geographic barriers led to greater projection of power from the centre, thus leading to fewer differences between disparate localities, and thence to increased fragility in the presence of adversity.

Russia and China (also Japan since the end of WW2), as political entities, simply can't adapt fast enough to external change, nor can they tolerate internal improvements not sanctioned by the strongman of the day. End result: heavy focus on the one or two things they can do well.

Inequality is really bad for a number of different reasons

1. see the gatsby curve for strong positive correlation between intergenerational social mobility and inequality

2. social costs of inequality (see Wilkinson)

3. hurts overall growth

also
>this is switzerland's progressive taxing table
>implying switzerland is a society being destroyed by this
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Not "The Wealth of Nations"

Its the fucking same it was either pay your taxes or die because all your wealth belongs to the state as soon as you had a certain ammount of cesterses, you were allowed to "keep" your money but it was all in name.
How is this not different to today's progressive taxation except the death part which hasnt been implemented quite yet.

>2. social costs of inequality (see Wilkinson)
These are bullshit, they are mostly made up correlations using faulty data. The rest is right though.

see
you fucking dumbass don't even know wtf you're talking about

drink bleach

social capital and costs are a real thing m8

read bowling alone by robert putnam it really fleshes out the argument

Its the same, the only thing Piketty advocates is an even higher tax rate.
And of course the swiss are going to do better even with taxes, they are not the niggers of europe.
Lets see you work under 70%+ taxation rate.

>Russians defending capitalism
We have come full circle.

I stopped paying attention to what economists were saying when I realized they all stopped short of providing answers for how to fix our perceived problems. A lot of economists are very descriptive but very few are willing to go as far as prescribing policy fixes. They don't have a clue, just like the rest of us. Economics isn't a science or anything close to it.

>say progressive taxation
>colombian monkey assumes this HAS TO mean 70% tax
that's not what "progressive taxation" means you subhuman scum
progressive just means the people who make more pay proportionally more
you're just assuming certain numbers for no reason

What's different are motivations in the presence of both. Taxes assume the wealth belongs to the individual first on which the state has a lawful claim: those taxed are therefore motivated to increase income. All funds belong to the state sees those dispossessed motivated to decrease visible income.

Thus could the West outspend the USSR even though the Soviets laid claim to 100% of resources

>Lets see you work under 70%+ taxation rate.
>Oh no, instead of 3 billion shekels I get to keep only 1 billion shekels

It doesn't even apply to lower/middle class.

The guy is a retard. Didn't read the book but I can't stand this fucker.

can someone expand on why growing income inequality is bad for society instead of trying to tackle poverty specifically.

Highly relevant to stuff im working on right now

It seems related to the Social Contract: it is more difficult for a unitary society to cohere if individuals within share fewer and fewer features with their neighbours.

Growing *equality* can be seen in the French Revolution with the introduction of one French language - that of the Parisien French - along with military uniforms of the state, instead of individual colours according to one's Lord.

I don't have a clue, leaf. I do worry about the effect of money on our politics and the pull of 'special' interests given that we're an alleged democracy. Other than that, which could be remedied easily with appropriate legislation, there's doesn't seem to be any negative effect that I can see. It reminds me of when leftists talk about demographics and the effect that an aging population will have on society. There's nothing wrong from a sociological standpoint of an aging population. It's the effect on the welfare state and public spending that gets the leftists all hot and bothered.

excessive inequality erodes consumption on behalf of lower and middle classes, which are the bulk of population, especially middle classes.
this in turn requires businesses to get their income mostly from export, especially higher technology products and services because lower income people require less advanced technology and products. this in turn makes it harder for small businesses to start up, and favours products and services that require less education and less technology. all of this, in turn, stunts a countries growth.

to exemplify the other way around, if you progressive taxation means lower and middle classes pay less taxes, which allows them more consumption and consequently more consumption of high-tech goods and services. higher taxes on higher incomes means the state gets more income for public services, such as education, health, housing, public transit and infrastructure in general, which in turn improves opportunities for lower and middle classes as well as small businesses and high-tech businesses (because of better infrastructure like communications). this allows to exploit more of a population's potential, while the lower taxes and higher consumption favors the creation of new small businesses in higher-education/technology goods and services. all of this leads to more economic growth.

the second example is what happens in switzerland and why it's one of the most prosperous and startup-favouring countries on earth.

6 months ago I was barkinh along with the "muh inequality is ok muh Piketty is a socialist" crowd. Now I have almost finished the book and feel dumb.

You faggots seem to imply that a rise in taxation wont affect you and unless you are the bottom of the barrel which is most likely it will.

now LETS DO SOME FUCKING CALCULATIONS
See pic related the progressive tax bracket for 1980 in the US
Bottom for single male is 0% ok
Adjusting for inflation(usinflationcalculator.com/) bracket goes like this:
>$6,747.29 --- 14%
>$44,004.07 --- 30%
>$99,742.55 --- 49%
>$120,277.78 --- 55%
>$162,228.32 --- 63%
>$316,829.27 --- 70%

So there you have it, if you think that level of progressive taxation which was common for 2 decades and it has been tried wont affect your poor ass then you are delusional.

Tax data source:
taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

again, see you dunce
>lowest bracket 0%
>highest bracket 30%
now eat rat poison sudaca de mierda

meant to quote

thats the point you fucking retard
PICKETTY IS ARGUING FOR A RETURN TO HIGH TAXATION, JUST HOW DENSE YOUR MUSLIM RAPE BABY BRAIN IS?

that's a reductionist strawman of my theory but surprisingly apt

>more productive white/asian people kill other races that consume more than they produce
>rate of techonological advance goes up

I never even talked about Piketty you illiterate
I only talked about the concept of progressive taxation itself
someone doing it wrong doesn't invalidate the concept you triggered piece of shit

Really though. When you're not subsidizing a bunch of violent adults with the intelligence of grade schoolers it really frees up your time and money.

>Krugman
The guy is a joke
>Gruber
Supported Obamacare and thought it would make things cheaper.
>Stiglitz
"Greece will not default."
>Sachs
China is a good example of uplifting people out of poverty
>Samuelson
"Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."

You're arguing in favor of progressive taxation I show you how "good" it has been in the past and then you say its impossible for it to climb there yet again or get even worse when the IMF and faggot Piketty are shilling for it and its likely their ultimate end.

volkswagen sucks though. jetta was the worst car i ever drove and they lied about emissions.

And I showed you that one of the most prosperous countries in the world uses progressive taxation.
Your example proves nothing except that if you do it wrong it doesn't work. While my example shows that if done properly progressive taxation works. Why are you so dense? Why can't you accept any other examples except your own?

inequality is a good thing if kept at the ability where one can escape one class to another (climb the ladder). inequality becomes horrible when its a permanent class system where no one can escape their class and the rich only stay rich and no one else can climb the ladder. permanent inequality actually hinders people and makes no incentive to try because the system is stacked against you. with the good ineqality where one can climb the ladder there is a huge incentive to try.

Considering that income is largely a function of IQ, and therefore heritable, doesn't it follow that any redistribution scheme is doomed to fail?

My whole point, you argue that it works at like 30%, but if they get their way it sure as hell wont stay at 30% for the upper bracket, more likely you will end up paying as if you were the 1%.

Martin Feldstein, Blanchard, Ha-Joon Chang.

>but if they get their way it sure as hell wont stay at 30% for the upper bracket
if who gets their way? says who? why do you mix practical details in a theoretical discussion? why are you so retarded?

Income redistribution thanks to your loved Piketty you retard.
Whatever, feel free to pay 50% of your income.

>income
>IQ
scientists and engineers make shit compared to bankers. the same bankers who were too stupid to notice how combined shit rated loans into a bundle and call them AAA would somehow not destroy the economy. Business people who on average make more money than any scientist are not that intelligent. JUst look at Blockbuster who went bankrupt because they had no idea what was happening with home media with Netflix.

if we're being honest, most modern day economists are fucking annoying smug dickheads

but the nicest guy out there is bryan caplan, even though he's a smug dick, too.

I never even talked about piketty. learn to fucking read.

progressive taxation works if properly done. deal with it.

Ol'Marty is alright.
>Blanchard
Austerity really hurt Britain didn't it, despite the fact that the IMF had to drop its criticisms
>Chang
"Yeah let's just ignore all those counter examples, free trade is evil guys. That is why developing countries. Listen washing machines are more important than the internet"

...

> China is a good example of uplifting people out of poverty

There's absolutely nothing controversial about this statement

Orwell is a socialist.

China adopted free market and privatization in order to achieve those results.
Sachs also said the only way for developing countries to be uplifted is with a plan that includes excessive foreign aid.

Orwell the socialist equivalent of a cuckservative complaining about "true conservativism" but instead with "true socialism" and how communism was not true socialism.

Ok so let's regulate and tax the richest people a bit so that we can spread the wealth out mo- WHOOPS!

Look at that! They all ran to Switzerland and took all their money and capital with them.

Guess I'll just have to eat McDonald's and shit blood into the cushions of my couch...

>things that never happened
How come all those billionaires from Europe don't run to tax havens? Oh, wait, because they still gonna need major markets.

>I'll just have to eat McDonald's and shit blood into the cushions of my couch

Spurdo your problems are not economic

Shart it out amigo.

>Bankers rate the bundles
It was a mistake made by rating agencies, not bankers.

>implying that progressive tax is even touching the majority of swiss wealth, which is to say, the foreign wealth sitting in swiss banks.

Yanis BTFOs him
youtube.com/watch?v=wNLPO2j9RQ0

By the guy who used to sell dota 2 hats? Right.