[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 82 KB, 450x680, Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century_(front_cover).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6275851 No.6275851 [Reply] [Original]

What did you think of this?

>> No.6275860

Does it matter what we think? Go read what Taleb or Wolfers or just about any major economist thinks, fuck go to ejmr even.

>> No.6275875

>>6275860
Do you enjoy being a pointless asshole?

>> No.6275880

>>6275860
This is a decent place to discuss economics.

OP I have not read it yet, as I am currently reading Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy, but I have seen some of Piketty's presentations and talk show appearances, including the Ted Talk and I would have to say his rather iconoclastic stance is very well made, yet I do not like oversimplified economic reasoning.

>> No.6275884

>>6275880
>I do not like oversimplified economic reasoning.

Could that just be from the TED-talk and talk shows? The producers tell their guests to dumb down their stuff as much as possible

>> No.6275892

>>6275884
Yes but the whole r > g concept is an extremely macro way to view economics.

>> No.6275949

>>6275875
A little too much, actually

>> No.6275954

>>6275892
If you want a non-simplified version, read what was actually published in the QJE for other academics, not Capital in the 21st Century

>> No.6275956

i hope i can still get some money for it on ebay

>> No.6275957

>>6275851
Cultural Marxist nonsense.

>> No.6275958

>>6275892
how exactly is it "macro"

>> No.6275961

>>6275957
actually this is just regular Marxist nonsense, nothing cultural about it

>> No.6275962

What's a good, Marxist/left history of the transformation of capital in the 20th to 21st century, particularly focusing on imperialism, the post-war liberal consensus, the 70s fragmentation of the west, and the restructured neo-liberal consensus?

Something in one volume. I'm also open to a few different books that deal with these topics either together or separately.

>> No.6275971

>>6275962
Cybermarx plus Late capitalism

>> No.6275977

>>6275962
You might as well start with David Harvey - Brief History of Neoliberalism

>> No.6275979
File: 89 KB, 350x374, love and tolerate stalin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6275979

>>6275851
Pretentious liberal nonsense.

Just fucking read actual Marxist literature, and not some shit some libtard made to look edgy.

>> No.6275985

>>6275961
Except it's entirely outside and contrary to the radical economic tradition. It's neither Marxist, Marxian, or heterodox at all. Just because it has an expansive data set that says market failures can include wealth accumulation in small groups doesn't mean you should throw around words that have meanings whose misuse makes you look like an ill informed ideologue.

This is coming from a comparatively staunch supporter of market liberalization

>> No.6275992
File: 204 KB, 1400x1786, 1423683662777.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6275992

>>6275979
But then we wouldn't read Zizek.

Zizek is love. Zizek is life.

>> No.6276017

>>6275958
It takes the entirety of economic progression and simplifies it as a function of the return on capital, and simply viewing it this way gives an overimportance to interest rates and the rate of increase or decrease, with mostly just historical data to back up the assertion, instead of microanalyzing the individual facets of production and productivity. Perhaps this was just a cursory analysis from what he was presenting though. I have watched a couple lectures by him.

My favorite economics is the kind that is increasingly theoretical and less practical, so golden-age economics is by far my favorite.

>> No.6276025

>>6275880
>>6275884
>TED talks
>good
Behold the place where you stop thinking and the speaker thinks for you

>>6275962
>>6275977
Don't forget Harvey's Lectures on Capital

https://www.youtube.com/user/readingcapital/playlists

Also Piketty never read Marx
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117655/thomas-piketty-interview-economist-discusses-his-distaste-marx

>> No.6276031

>>6276017
It doesn't "simplify it to a simple function", it's just a growth model that asserts different things. It's no different than solow or other reigning neoclassical models. It's really not objectionable unless you mean you're into praxeology, in which case no one should listen to you

>> No.6276038

>>6276031
And what are these different things it asserts.

>> No.6276052

>>6276038
See page 22. It gets rather technical, but that's why it was (over)surmised with "r > g".

http://users.nber.org/%7Ejwolfers/papers/Comments/Piketty.pdf

>> No.6276056

>>6276052
Oh I just wanted you to summarize.