ITT: Books that brainlets will never understand.

[Anonymous No.9129370]

[Anonymous No.9129375]

>>9129370
take the fucking redpill marx was the worst thinker of all time, and managed to destroy western civilization with it

[Anonymous No.9129377]

>>9129375
>Marx.

[Anonymous No.9129379]

>>9129370
Summarize 3 general (but maybe profound, or at least important points) that everyone (including and especially brainlets) should know or would learn from this book:

If you cannot do this, you must return your Shill member (and rewards) card, and get your Anti-Brainlet badge revoked

[Anonymous No.9129387]

>>9129375
>take the fucking redpill
lmao

[Anonymous No.9129401]

[Anonymous No.9129426]

the bible

[Anonymous No.9129441]

>>9129379

There are a lot of ideas he talks about. Its not very fresh since I read it two years ago but off the top of my head:
>The top tax bracket should be like 70% and progressive taxes are good.

>Lowering taxes, especially the top marginal tax rates, which has been the trend in Anglo countries (esp. USA) since after WWIII, then more rapidly during Reagan years, increases income inequality. This is not only from the obvious (paying less tax), it also makes it easier for CEOs and top executives to negotiate higher salaries. Normal theories of labor supply and marginal productivity would say that the lower taxes reduce the tax wedge, causing workers to increase their labor supply and increase their effort. But this doesn't explain the explosion of income inequality, esp from CEO and executive salaries. Lowering taxes has transformed the way salaries are determined. When tax rates are high, its a lot harder to convince the board that a extravagant salary is justified if over 70% of any additional pay is going to tax. When rates are lowered there is an incentive to bargain for higher salaries - and due to the ambiguous nature of executive/CEO jobs its very hard to determine their 'marginal product', or accurately measure their contribution to output. As a result, its really fucking easy to get super high salaries.

>Wage and income inequality is not caused just by differences in human capital (skills).

>Estate taxes should be higher.

>Inequality is not a prerequisite for entrepreneurial dynamism, contrary to what Americans think.

>Capital should be taxed.

>Invest in education and make it easier for low income earners to access.

>Can't remember in detail the other stuff.

[Anonymous No.9129452]

>>9129370
Piketty's work is completely trivial, not to mention incorrect. Inequality is of no concern whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9129487]

>>9129441
what an idiot. the following scheme is the best:

>privatize everything
>keep markets perfectly 'free' (they must remain competitive, patents must be enforced on drugs etc.)
>broad based progressive income tax
>cash payouts to the 'losers' in whatever measure is 'just'

welfare maximization in the absence of higher purpose lmao

[Anonymous No.9129489]

>>9129441
Nice thanks.

Why do all those points sound 'progressivey'?

[Anonymous No.9129497]

Take the REAL Redpill, there is no such thing as methodological monism, a scientific method or Economics, they are all forms of life which exist to solve problems created within these forms of life but are all groundless (not that it matters):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNhkYXhYSSs


WAKE UP

[Anonymous No.9129538]

>>9129452
>Inequality is of no concern whatsoever
lmao how old are you and how often do you leave your basement?

[Anonymous No.9129549]

Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.9129555]

>>9129487
well well well if it isn't reddit!

[Anonymous No.9129567]

>>9129489
>Why do all those points sound 'progressivey'?
because progressivism is good

[Anonymous No.9129589]

>>9129441
>lets tax the producers of worth heavily so the bureaucrats can have extravagant salaries

[Anonymous No.9129596]

>>9129441
If anything Piketty is far too bourgeois why not abolish wage labor and private property?

[Anonymous No.9129617]

>>9129377
>>9129487
Are the literally, non-ironically people on /lit/ who are shilling for capital and the status quo? Out of all places, this is the one I expected people to be knowledgeable about this stuff.

[Anonymous No.9129645]

>>9129617
try reddit or /leftypol/

oh wait you're coming here from there to promote your cuck degenerate lifestyle.

there's nothing wrong with the status quo you cuck. we're all very happy with the way things are

[Anonymous No.9129647]

>>9129617
Capitalism, is the only system of organization to have produced results in the modern era. True socialism has never existed anyway, right?

[Anonymous No.9129658]

What's the socialist position on mass immigration and offshoring? That seems to have pretty much wiped out America's working class.

[Anonymous No.9129660]

>>9129647
nice try, Schlomo, but the status quo is actually marxism, cuckoldry and white genocide

[Anonymous No.9129673]

>>9129660
No it isn't, you fucking retard. There are precisely zero socialist countries in the world today. Not even the DPRK is Communist anymore. Seek truth from facts, as Deng would say.

[Anonymous No.9129678]

>>9129645
no, you try it. I think you'd like the_donald, it's a progressive sub for people like you, where you can talk about your sexual fetishes all day. this is a fetish-free zone.

[Anonymous No.9129685]

>>9129660
what is "marxism", exactly?

[Anonymous No.9129686]

>>9129658
I just agree with some of his economic ideas, not his stances on the wider political/social issues like immigration, PC, social justice, LGBT etc.

[Anonymous No.9129687]

>>9129673
And according to you there are actual capitalist countries in the world?

[Anonymous No.9129689]

[Anonymous No.9129690]

>>9129678
sounds like you know all about it. might that be because youre a fucking reddit cuck?

[Anonymous No.9129691]

>>9129687
Yes, all of them except the DPRK. Who even knows what the DPRK is any more, but they formally renounced Marxism-Leninism.

[Anonymous No.9129693]

>>9129691
Consider going to wikipedia and reading up on capitalism.

[Anonymous No.9129695]

>>9129370
Ew, really? That book is the greatest farce of our time. Merely hollow eloquence sold to pseudointellectuals looking for selfgratification

[Anonymous No.9129698]

>>9129370
Piketty is literally a mental midget though it's slightly amusing to see him try and discredit Marx when he can't.

[Anonymous No.9129699]

>>9129693
>wikipedia
it's painfully obvious that's the extent of what you read

[Anonymous No.9129702]

>>9129693
Every fucking country in the world has private property with production for profit. Socialism entails no private property, no money, no state, and production for use.

Please, show me a country whose economy is dominated by production for use, not for profit, has no private property, and no money.

[Anonymous No.9129706]

>ITT /pol/
pol stop trying to colonize our board. /lit/ is a communist board we don't buy into your anti marxist bullsh*t

[Anonymous No.9129711]

>>9129702
Add the entry on socialism to the reading list.
>>9129699
Likewise, if even that's too much for you.

[Anonymous No.9129715]

>>9129370
>reading a book that has wrong formulas in it
My favorite part was when Piketty was confronted about how the book had wrong formulas he said it didn't matter

If you want a real economics book here ya go

[Anonymous No.9129718]

>>9129711
Do you think I'm some retard Communist trying to make a "no true capitalism!" argument, here? Practically every country is capitalist except the DPRK and this is an extremely good thing.

[Anonymous No.9129722]

>>9129718
I think you are clearly underage which is demonstrated by your repeated use of 'retard' and can't even read a short wikipedia article to educate yourself even on the most basic level about the things you're attempting to shitpost about.

[Anonymous No.9129723]

>>9129711
>i can'texplain why you're wrong, just go read wikipedia LMAO

psuedo detected maybe these boards would better suit your interests

>>>/hm/
>>>/b/
>>>/v/
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.9129727]

>>9129715
My favorite part is where you aren't even capable or saying what he got wrong and why it was relevant without looking it up on google.

[Anonymous No.9129728]

>>9129722
Ok, please show me a non-capitalist country outside of the DPRK, or an existing socialist country, outside of the DPRK.

[Anonymous No.9129730]

>>9129723
It's pseud /pol/ newfriend, try to lurk a bit more before posting.

[Anonymous No.9129733]

>>9129728
>>9129711
>Add the entry on socialism to the reading list.

[Anonymous No.9129734]

>>9129728
you claim your so smart just curious what the size of your head is?

Mine is 25 inches and according to this calculator http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/sphere.php that means I have a 263inch volume of brain size.

I'm asking you to measure around your head with a tape measure and tell me the length so I can calculate it.

If your not up to do that then I think that says everything we need to know.

[Anonymous No.9129742]

>>9129733
>i can't refute you
:^)

[Anonymous No.9129749]

>>9129685
if 'cultural marxism dont real'. then how do you explain THIS?!?

[Anonymous No.9129751]

>>9129733
I can't read an article that long :^(

A 1 word answer will do.

>>9129734
It's only 2 cubic inches. I am very dumb so I need a 1 word answer to the question in >>9129728

[Anonymous No.9129761]

>>9129370
>political tomes are literature!
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9129762]

>>9129742
>>9129751
The wikipedia article I mentioned refutes you, it's not my fault reading it is too difficult for you.

[Anonymous No.9129771]

>>9129762
I'm sure it does friendo

boy do I stand corrected, you sure are smart for reading that fancy wikipedia article.

[Anonymous No.9129772]

>>9129762
Until you can show me a country in which workers control the means of production, you're literally losing an argument to a retard. Sad!

[Anonymous No.9129774]

>>9129771
>>9129772
Sure thing, I only hope you can muster up the strength and read it yourself, maybe try one paragraph a day if the whole thing is too long.

[Anonymous No.9129782]

>>9129774
Left-wing words are all too big and intellectual for me. I just want a fucking country name so I can learn about the glorious continued successes of worker control of the means of production through Marxism.

[Anonymous No.9129784]

>>9129782
You can find them on the aforementioned wikipedia page, give it a shot.

[Anonymous No.9129798]

>>9129555
>>9129617
if your goal is soulless welfare maximization ive outlined the optimal program. i never said it was my preferred program.

[Anonymous No.9129817]

>>9129784
ok I just checked it out and I totally see how you might think you're right but actually I also just read something that refutes your argument it's somewhere on this wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

read the whole thing and you will see I am the one who is right

[Anonymous No.9129825]

>>9129817
Looks interesting, I will give it a read. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.9129907]

>>9129727
Nice ad hom fag

[Trippy de0tU5YN7 No.9130028]

>>9129567
>because progressivism is good
But taxation is theft. 'progressivism' via taxes is attempting to fix a flat tire with a bandaid. What you need to do, is shoot one of the poor people in your trunk, weighing your car down, skin them, let their skin leather on the hood of your car in the noon day sun, and then fashion that into a tire.

[Anonymous No.9130050]

>>9129647
It hasn't.

[Anonymous No.9130076]

>>9129715
In case the writers of this book are arguing against the existence of minimum wage (which may or not be better for this place or that place) it would be fun for them to be forced to work minimum wage (or less) jobs for a year (or more), just to see if their minds change.

[Anonymous No.9130111]

>>9129715
On the off chance the authors of this book espouse a position I disagree with (in a vague enough form that I won't be called upon to justify my disagreement) it would make for quite the humorous situation if they were placed in a position where they experienced circumstances related to that position for a year (or more), for the sake of observing any differences in their approach to economics between the beginning and the end of that time period.
I assume, of course, that they never thought through the full ramifications of their proposals while carefully writing an academic book on the subject, otherwise my entire hypothetical is deflated.

[Anonymous No.9130115]

>>9129375
>taking pills
absolutely degenerate.

[Anonymous No.9130119]

Can someone give me a general definition of brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9130127]

>>9130119
their brain is under 6 bogdanoffs large in volume.

[Anonymous No.9130146]

>>9130111
thank you kek, I feel famous

[Anonymous No.9130153]

>>9130111
I presumed there would be more of a need and reason to argue for the non existence of minimum wage, than for... I couldnt imagine why someone would say "this thread, and this world, needs to know that there are a lot of arguments as to why the minimum wage should exist", so I assumed that was not the case. I am on the phone with my lawyer as we speak, as I am also assuming you are going to sue me

[Anonymous No.9130231]

>>9130111
I tend towards the idea that the position I hold is the default one and requires less defense than its inverse... It is beyond my capability to grasp the reasoning behind some imaginary Person X speaking aloud like so: "the general corpus currently lacks a plethora of arguments made in favor of the position that I (person X) hold" - please note here that I, the author, do not hold and indeed directly oppose the position of this hypothetical Person X, and Person X exists solely as a thought experiement - ergo, I found myself led to the counterpositioned conclusion. Also, to further reinforce my distaste for the position that you hold - please note that I do not know the position you hold, and am only assuming that it is opposed to my own to further my rhetorical goals - I should mention that I am currently engaging legal representation preemptively, so as to guard against any attacks you should make on me through the courts. This is, of course, hyperbole, nonetheless I feel it sums up my position well and so I shall include it on the end of my statement.

[Anonymous No.9130249]

It's no coincidence that many of the works are economics books, but this one takes the cake. The number of people I've seen on the internet either misinterpreting pic related or just complaining because it is too confusing is astounding. Clearly only people who like resource distribution because of its simplicity want a system not materially defined and balanced on the principle of free trade and free trade only.

[Anonymous No.9130258]

>>9129689

AYYYYYYYY

[Anonymous No.9130291]

>>9130249
>>9129370

There are two problems. Problem 1: If you don't have strong re-distributive measures and set up your system so that capital is free to move wherever you can get the best returns, you wind up with massive wealth inequality that winds up poisoning politics and the consumer economy. People who own their own homes and cars and have spare money? Remarkably unlikely to be Marxists. People who don't own property? Tend to be more receptive to the idea of socialism.

Problem 2: If you do set up strong re-distributive measures and target full employment through trade barriers and strong worker protection, you wind up in a 1970's style stagflation. Which is politically toxic, as people watching endless strikes and general malaise will get behind some well funded reactionary, who will proceed to balloon the debt, dismantle all trade barriers, and sell the assets of the state to foreign pension funds for pennies on the dollar.

The thing is Keynes and Piketty were talking about the same thing. We've been through the entire cycle from laissez-faire global capitalism to nationalist protectionism and back (possibly back again if Trump actually starts trade wars). Question is how do you manage a political economy such that you neither stifle growth nor set the stage for a political backlash that destroys whatever system you set up.

Personally, I'm a Socred.

[Anonymous No.9130302]

>>9130291
When the philosophy of a single person is built into the system of his charts, you know the philosophy is a valid one.

For instance. Keynes noted the very apparent possibility that not all variables are independent, and some like employment, depend entirely on other, independent, variables. You have to understand he viewed the interest rate as continually going upward as well, constantly increasing, this could feasibly be the only thing that kept the marginal efficiency of capital above zero at near full employment or at a Keynesian 'bottle-neck' (resource depletion).

[Anonymous No.9130304]

>>9129370

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cLvl

Also, Piketty is just "Why pic related?"; you may disagree with his conclusion, but with 50% of the population about to be thrown out of work by robots, we need to figure something out before Marx starts seeming plausible again.

[Anonymous No.9130308]

>>9130302
What this means is, you need to keep the interest rate down, artificially. Morally, this could be viewed as something good for everyone overall. I believe in God, and I think a very simple rule was no usury. The natural tendency of the interest rate to increase is usurious, definitely a moral dilemma.

So the question is how. How do you manage the interest rate?

Well, Keynes gives two answers:
1) lower money-wages
2) lower the interest rate directly

Either way, the investment rate is going up. But Keynes was especially partial for the first, because the lowering of money-wages raised the marginal efficiency of capital at the same time that it lowered the interest rate. A tremendously beneficial effect, but sadly no politician wants to run on this platform because people don't understand the basic problems of economics - some of the most important problems of the world.

[Anonymous No.9130315]

>>9130291
Good post btw

[Anonymous No.9130320]

>>9129379
>post something brainlets would learn from this book
What part of "books that brainlets will never understand" did you not understand, brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9130328]

>>9130308
So when people say that Keynesianism is simply printing more money and QEs, they lose the bigger picture.

A QE is just the Fed lowering the Fed Funds rate so they can buy more Treasury Bills and trade them faster around the circle of financial institutions. The problem is that the interest rate lowering is only a part of the overall issue here, and Keynes even said he was extremely displeased with the remedy of simply lowering the interest rate of the financial institutions. And not only that, but artificially inflating output without decreasing wages first ensures a further depreciation of the monetary unit, considering a portion of the effects of issuing further bank credits to increase output is a growing in the marginal value in terms of wage-units and a growth in the wage-unit in terms of the monetary units.

[Anonymous No.9130370]

>>9130119
A Manlet is lacking height.

A brainlet is lacking intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9130388]

I haven't read the book obviously, but from what I can gather about it, it seems to boil down to some basic and fairly obvious points, and it seems superfluous to capital. What is even the point of such a book?

Yes, capital still dominates in the 21st, the poor are getting fucked, inequality is bad, wealthy people don't want to give anything up, need more tax, etc. They seem like such simple points, that could be make in so much less pages. Why bother writing so much about it, when he doesn't have that much to add to Kapital?

It'd be cool if he had some novel, off the wall ideas that could be added to the French social theory corpus, but I doubt ideas this anodyne will make much of a lasting impact.

[Anonymous No.9130409]

>>9130231
I now assume the book in question, is entirely unopiniated, and inconclusive, they got the data from different countries, and studied the a/effects of minimum wage, maybe in some places its good, maybe in some places its bad, I do not know because, I dont want to read the synopsis yet, its in another tab, and in several responses, it has not been made clear on whether or not a substantial conclusion was reached, so I will further assume, that I must not read that book, as it reached the same conclusion, I did; that is, one of: in.

In conclusion; minimum wage law can be good, to prevent employees from taking advantage of potential workers.

Minimum wage law can be bad, because workers might outsource the work or insource immigrants to do it off the books.

Raising the minimum wage law by 7 dollars at a moments notice because some liberals started a facebook argument and it got a thousand likes, and so now 'moms against mad low minimum wage its the current year yo' are extorting every business in their state by gun, to pay their employees 6 dollars more an hour, because the elites also thought this would be a fun distraction in the news cycle, to fuck with those faggy small buisness owners tryna get their new money, and show everyone how dangerous democracy can be.

[Anonymous No.9130433]

>>9130304
Luddite Fallacy? On my 4chan??

[Anonymous No.9130614]

>>9130291
>Problem 2
Does this imply welfare state is better than even trying to approach approaching full employment?/ the masses are paying for it either way, either welfare taxes or if not that, then consumer goods? But are you suggesting they would/should rather pay for welfare/paying welfare is cheaper for them

[Anonymous No.9130628]

>>9130308
When you speak about interest rate, you are speaking about the FED, the interest rate the banks owe the FED on the money they get from them?

And/or, the Interest rates banks charge people?

[Anonymous No.9130633]

>>9130291
>letting the state do anything except protect citizens from aggression, theft, and breach of contract
>thinking an authoritarian state is in any way conpatible with ANY economic system, and by extension prosperity

Why are statists such monumental brainlets?

[Anonymous No.9130651]

>>9129706
This is why post-his /lit/ sucks, only naive communists and the occasional dumb pollack.

Kind of a shame because initially it seemed that there was going to be some decent discourse post-his, with a few fantastic conservative posts emerging to balance the echo chamber.

They smartened up though and left to better spend their time.

[Anonymous No.9130662]

>>9130628
>>9130308

Ok, I am guessing, Feds rates, dictate what banks rates will be.

What are the important things here. How do banks make profit. On interest of loans they give, fees, and allowing traders/investors trade/invest their money? (any other general things I am missing?)

So when interest rates are high... it is said banks dont want to give out loans... because banks dont want to accept the loan from FED... implied?

And people dont want to accept loan from bank (to start their business), and have to pay it back high interest rate.

So this interest rate stuff is how to get it attractive for people to take loans to start business... but not so low rate, that the "crazy failure loons" start coming to the bank, and compel the bank to make loans that cant be paid back?

And so really the banks are the communes of capitalism, and they are the bureaucrats that decide which business deserves funding.

Turning_away_from_the_computer_thumbs_up.gif

[Anonymous No.9130666]

>>9129538
Problem is never of equality. It's of respect (or lack thereof) or injust division.

[Anonymous No.9130690]

>>9130666
>Problem is never of equality. It's of respect (or lack thereof) or injust division.
yep, I love and hate to say this, but its not the first time ive said this; Satan is right guys.

Its about the humane dignity of life, struggling to escape death

[Anonymous No.9131205]

>>9130633

Oooh! A libertarian in the wild! Let's see if this one can comprehend that only a deeply, if not totally authoritarian state could possibly implement libertarian principles. Maybe then we can see if they can deal with really advanced concepts, like the fact that there are other forms of coercive power besides that vested in the state.

[Anonymous No.9131258]

>>9129907
It's a logical fallacy to rebut someone's argument by pointing out their use of a logical fallacy or non argument within their argument.

[Anonymous No.9131313]

>>9130662
Right, which is why the investment rate goes up whenever any of the two following situations occur

1) the interest rate goes down
2) the marginal efficiency of capital goes up

[Anonymous No.9131317]

>>9131313
Sorry, investment in general goes up. The investment rate is essentially the interest rate so that post didn't make too much sense.

[Anonymous No.9131456]

>>9129685
Basically anything I don't like.

I'm basically a filthy neoliberal and have plenty to disagree about with Marxism and many anti-capitalist positions, but use words to mean things damn it.

[Anonymous No.9131475]

>>9130291
Piketty was most against generational wealth right? I had a hard time with that book, but his solution is heavy, almost anti-trust estate taxes on high networth individuals to break up economic dynasties.(?)

[Anonymous No.9131493]

>>9131475
Someone higher up NEEDs to run on a platform for that, wealth consolidation is the source of one of our biggest problems financially.

Economists have been saying that for centuries now.

In J.S. Mill's Principles of Political Economy, he talks about the ameliorative effects of completely socializing inheritance.

In Keynes' General Theory, on of the two points he makes in the very last chapter is that a much higher tax on estates is necessary for the beneficial effect of making people productive.

Hell, even in Smith's Wealth of Nations, Primogeniture is looked upon unfavorably because it puts far too much wealth in one individual's pocket.

[Anonymous No.9131508]

>>9131205
It comes down to what you consider to be "real" coercive power; just fighting off burglars doesn't require authoritarianism, but if you're concerned with social coercion that's another ball game.

[Anonymous No.9131513]

>>9131493
>tfw the level that activates estate taxes is like 3 million

That is a moderate life insurance policy for a comfortable working man. It should be closer to 20 and should apply to stock holdings. And it doesnt answer the problem of foreign asset purchases (piketty's example of a particularly smart and successful sheikh family buying exponentially in some US market).

[Anonymous No.9131531]

>>9131513
What about completely socializing it? I mean, you would change the name of the ball game, wealth accumulation would be more 'active', which increases the velocity of money, which is accepted as increasing the output and making everyone more productive.

[Anonymous No.9131547]

>>9131531
You always need a carrot to increase production AI notwithstanding. And it needs to be immediate, be it Soma or profit. The vague promise of a future socialist Utopia has never been enough. A crushing estate tax over a point that lets someone maintain a life of work and provide for generational security ((10 million or so) while not causing Piketty's problem with exponential wealth acquisition should be sufficient.

[Anonymous No.9131561]

>>9131313
the rate of interest in reality has very little effect on real investments
capitalists aren't going to invest in fixed-capital and employing labour if there is no chance of profit
when there is little chance of profit decreasing interest rates will just lead to financial speculation
what matters is the rate of return on industrial fixed-capital not fluctuations in the rate of interests

>>9131493
no it's not, the reason for the increase in inequality is primarily the lack of real investments in fixed-capital since the beginning of the neoliberal era and the growth of financial markets
no one is going to invest into fixed-capital when you get a higher rate of return on speculation, if you "spread the wealth out more" the money is still going to go where it will get the highest rate of return

[Anonymous No.9131562]

>>9131547
Listen to yourself. That's far to much. After providing someone with an education growing up, it is their job as a citizen of the country they live in to WORK. That's the problem we deal with in America: instead of people being productive, they would rather develop post-industrial service based positions.

[Anonymous No.9131572]

>>9129375
read a fucking book, bourgeois social liberalism has nothing to do with marx
>absolute state of rorkes

[Anonymous No.9131591]

>>9131561
What about the postulation by Keynes that the marginal efficiency of capital is simply just a premium over the interest and associated risk? In that case, the marginal efficiency of capital is actually extremely correlated with the interest rate.

The money will get a return if invested in capital, and that's the only reason the marginal efficiency of capital tends to approximate towards the interest rate over time. The fact of the matter is simply a spur to social philosophy: massive inheritance discourages hard work. And unfortunately, that's what a lot of Marxists sit on while they don't contribute to the economy at all.

[Anonymous No.9131596]

>>9131562
People need to be rewarded for success. There are three possible ways for that 10 million to go.

1. Solid intelligent investment by intelligent heirs that provides actual capital to the targets of said investments, which creates an economic benefit to workers and businesses. Profit is taxed at the end of individuals life, and the cycle begins again.
2. Profligate waste by idiot heirs, provides boost to service economy. 10 million will not let you live the high-life your entire life though, as such the estate tax will have served its purpose to end a Waltonesque dynasty.
3. Stagnation. Individual puts 10million into index funds or some shit and doesnt really spend. Thus the status quo is maintained.

None of these three result in a massive increase in wealth. I understand what you are saying about work, but utilitarian ideology is not practical in providing incentive. Spending inherited wealth, and having the remainder taxed will allow the US to finally implement reasonable health and education service while not confiscating wealth at a low level.

[Anonymous No.9131611]

>>9131596
>None of these three result in a massive increase in wealth
No, but they do result in the maintenance of a Veblenian 'Leisure Class'.

[Anonymous No.9131634]

>>9131611
Who cares. I think you overestimate the competence of heirs, option 2 would be the most common, and consumer spending drives economic growth. Again, your concerns are aesthetic/ideological/ethical, not practical. There will always be people like warren buffet who create huge fortunes in their lifetimes, and that is the wealth to-be-shattered that matters to Piketty. Having some snobs spend 2% of daddies money when he dies for 15 years before finding themself in crippling debt is incidental.

[Anonymous No.9131774]

>>9131634
We're not concerned about the Warren Buffetts here, we're concerned about the entire cities which are based on an overall cost of living considerably higher than other areas, worsening only because of inherited behavior WITH the wealth. It really is a social issue here, and one which has almost every economist agreeing inheritance needs to be severely taxed to fix.

[Anonymous No.9131780]

>>9130231
shit I'm late with this one

I'm gay xD

[Anonymous No.9131785]

>>9131634
I say almost every economist...

There are some that share your view, sadly. The only one I've read recently is Irving Fisher's Theory of Interest as Determined by Impatience to Spend Income and Opportunity to Invest It, where he argues that wealth is cyclical, as you say. Sadly, that was the one part of the document which he did not back up with statistics.

[Anonymous No.9131795]

>>9129387
>Take the redpill
>Afterwords, you're no longer full of shit
Checks out, nu-male.

[Anonymous No.9131807]

>this thread
Pfft. Nothing personnel, kids

[Anonymous No.9131812]

>>9131774
>>9131785

Gentrification is a minor issue compared to what Piketty is talking about (the creation of an insurpassable oligarchy who's wealth increases exponentially based on continued purchase of assets). And I agree on estate-taxing, or what France is currently (or was?) trying to do on income over x,000,000.

But the only way to reach Piketty's solution on inherited wealth is compromise that allows high net-worth individuals to provide security for their children (if only by spending untaxed estate money on annuities for their children) and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Some neo-socialist state will never arrive without compromise.

Again, the idea of forcing individuals to give up everything on their death and live their children high and dry will never, ever be implemented, and is purely ideological.

[Anonymous No.9131886]

>>9131812
>if only by spending untaxed estate money on annuities for their children
Again, the argument is that this should be done with the wealth they accrue during their lifetime.

[Anonymous No.9131913]

>>9131886
I have nothing against inter-generational familial support.

I have problems when families like the Rothschilds, Waltons, and no doubt Steve Jobs and Zuckerbergs children, to say nothing of the hordes of faceless indian and asian moneymen accruing the nation's cash reserves unto themselves, and increasing that wealthy generation after generation by continued asset purchase and diversification.

I have nothing against some small business owner or doctor making sure their kids are comfortably well off. There is a reason the book is called "Capital". Leaving a 5 million dollar insurance policy to your kids so that they can pay off their college loans, buy a house, and have a nest egg against >>9131807 chaos is neither immoral of problematic economically, it only triggers a sour grapes response in neo-marxists

[Anonymous No.9131928]

>>9131913
The problem is exactly as you've said, however entire classes of people are sprouting up which grew up around certain behaviors and institutions simply because of the wealth they were given. This is morally wrong, in my opinion, and subjects different lives to different perceptions, which is incongruent with the technological theory of connectivity, where technology and industry have pushed us. This system is archaic, and I am no socialist or neo-marxist. I understand Piketty can have some outdated protectionist theories, so where does he stand on this issue? I say almost all the inheritance should be taxed, but this would result in a new economic system and order.

[Anonymous No.9131946]

>>9131928
>This is morally wrong
I dont care about the morals of it. I care about ending an endless cycle of hegemony by about 400 families in the entire world. Petty-bourgeois consumption patterns are the least of the problem.

>I understand Piketty can have some outdated protectionist theories, so where does he stand on this issue?
Piketty proposes that a progressive annual global wealth tax of up to 2%, combined with a progressive income tax reaching as high as 80%, would reduce inequality,[17] although he concedes that such a tax "would be politically impossible."

The book is much more dense, but to add to the wiki point, he feels that flexibility in this is important because as marx did not forsee increases of production due to technology stalling his revolution, we cannot see the future either (like AI).

[Anonymous No.9131956]

>>9131946
This political impossibility is exactly as I've said in the first post on this subject. The problem is you've let the equivalent of manufacturer's in Smith's era get ahold of legislation. You need sweeping change when it comes to inheritance, and you need it fast if you want to stop a hoarding, libertarian paradise. I mean that's basically what we live in RIGHT NOW.

[Anonymous No.9131975]

>>9129685
Marxism, in the wider sense, is a method of socio-economic analysis that is based on a materialist conception of history. It attempts to describe the capitalist mode of production, pointing out its imannent contradictions, and makes predictions regarding the post-capitalist mode of production and what the social and economic transformation of this would entail.

[Anonymous No.9131979]

Who here actually read this book?

[Anonymous No.9131990]

>>9131807
only good post ITT

[Anonymous No.9131991]

>>9131956
Kicking over the milk jar does not quench your thirst. Progressive scaling estate taxes with a start line that is set to x=1/5(total estate worth)-taxes paid on real estate etc is reasonable, and yanking the carpet from beneath the professional class is a poor way to reach the big picture objective.

[Anonymous No.9132000]

>>9131979
I read half of it then skipped to the end. I tried but it got pretty technical in places.

[Anonymous No.9132022]

>>9131991
I think kicking over the milk jar would be akin to sweeping reforms for socialism.

A simple massive, almost complete tax on inheritance would CERTAINLY not remove inequality. It would make inequality more purposeful.

[Anonymous No.9132324]

>>9130614

It very well might be. This is part of the argument for UBI after all. Why fuck around with monetary and fiscal measures when you could just give everyone money and have done with it. Of course, a strong welfare state is itself inflationary. One proposal I've seen is to have the central bank meet its inflation target by lending the government money at 0% that the government then gives directly to consumers. Effectively using inflation as an indirect tax on capital to fund social welfare. Could work, probably won't run into the stagflation problem as it's bounded by the central bank's inflation target.

The problem is strong welfare states and social safety nets have their own failure state. They only work for as long as there are not, nor allowed to be, any significant out-groups in society. Because once the average person is convinced that welfare is their money going to subsidize black people, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, wagon burners, gypsies, ASBOs, skivers, scroungers or whatever, that welfare state gets dismantled pretty efficiently. So you absolutely must have strong controls on immigration, you must have policies that encourage, if not assimilation, at least accommodation and the prevention of groups becoming ghettoized. You also need to have the government promoting the idea of a national identity as policy for a welfare state to be viable long term.

Which basically means that to put in place left wing economic policies, you need right wing social policies at least as far as nationalism goes. Kinda funny, mostly just sad.

[Anonymous No.9132660]

>>9132324
The rich can easily use immigration policies to crush the welfare state by purchasing politicians to import so many migrants that the welfare state becomes impossible to afford.

[Anonymous No.9132662]

>>9131313
>Right, which is why investment *in general goes up whenever any of the two following situations occur
>1) the interest rate goes down
>2) the marginal efficiency of capital goes up

Investment is only valuable/meaningful/significant if: Value is created and desired.

There are some values that "will always" be created and desired i.e. food, water, clothes, oil etc.

The idea is that: New values are being created and produced = new jobs to create/produce them = new pay checks = New values seeking to be produced seeks loan/investment to get started.

If someone invents some grand new invention (everything is based on novelty, as seen for tv ideas... iphone apps) and there is obvious demand (the trickiest part in all this, m'spose)

That value is valuable regardless of anything. No matter what about interest rates and anything else; for x amount of people, a phone (at all) is more valuable than not:

Someone has the idea to invent the phone; the demand 'does' and will exist regardless of anything (yes I know people still use horses after the model t); in these instances, as maybe any, it is idiots who do not invest.

And yes, that leads all to the, uncertainty of demand, = risk.

But saying generally high investment = good, is kind of arbitrary, I mean, good for the investors if they profit, good for the buisness owners and workers, good for hte consumers of that product:

And I guess the point being made is it is also good for the whole? Because it is the totality of these "conceptual events/activities" which gradually chunk by chunk contribute to making up "that which is the gdp"?

And the highest comprehension of goodness is equivalent to the highest physically possible gdp?

[Anonymous No.9132690]

>>9131547
>>9131513
What about just a one time only experiment of freezing everyones funds and assets who have over a certain amount of money, liquidating them all, throw them in jail, and use the liquidity to pay some of the national debt off?

The idea of estate tax is bad. ""children are everything""" a man working his whole life, creating novel inventions, persevering, captain of industry paving his own way, with his carrot being that his children do not have to struggle through a life of toil as he did, so that they may have an ideal life: you and the state should not steal this mans property. The saner way of going about this, would be some 'familial' wealth cap, (though it would be hard to enforce, as stopping people from storing wealth offshore, and not paying taxes already seems to be): Just after you make a certain amount of net worth, you arent allowed to make any more, because you are breaking capitalism and the world, and maybe instead of that extra 10 dollars you wont get can feed some starving person dying in an alley on the corner of main and wall

[Anonymous No.9132756]

>>9132662
>And the highest comprehension of goodness is equivalent to the highest physically possible gdp?
I think the answer to our question is simply:

What is more important, producing more or garnering a better lifestyle for the citizens.

If you're simply manufacturing more products because of increasing consumption and trading it with other countries which are agricultural but demand more money because you hardly produce anything anymore, it is clear that in some cases a higher GDP may not be the greatest economic indicator of success. I've actually read some articles off of reddit and lesswrong recently to the effect of 'GDP is not indicative of true economic progress'. But a population which is well provided for is. What does this mean? Jobs. How is employment generated? Investment. Not necessarily output, but just investment. Investing in capital or processes does not always produce output. In fact, it is in precisely most of these post-industrial service based positions where you see a great deal of investment have no appreciable effect at all on GDP. But somehow they create jobs. The prices of their products goes up, and the wages absorb all of it, as opposed to output. This is unhealthy. But it DOES happen.

What happened is far too much segmentation of work in the direction of idle, pecuniary occupation. It may be necessary for a fast, hedonistic lifestyle, but the mature approach to economics would tell you that it's unsafe.

So you're right, haha. GDP is certainly not an indicator for economic growth. But only because in a Ricardian sense, we've engendered trade relations with countries who are 'specialized' in agriculture FOR us. We still have the highest GDP, you must understand. But it's because we are an extremely big country who covers a lot of territory. You have to see that a lot of industries, finance, logistics, tech, et. al are focused on service based occupations. This isn't inherently a bad thing as we transition to technology helping us produce things, but I think the lesson to be learned is that at some point, we are going to have to start organizing these idle industries into something that actually PRODUCES things, not necessarily through strenuous work. That is, if you want some security in the economy. Investment is the only way to get to fuller employment, which is a completely dependent variable on all other inputs for economics. It's funny really, Keynes viewed the national income, something that I'm talking about right here, measured in wage-units as being inherently a dependent variable as well. So if you want to increase the GDP, one would hope you can increase it through a lowered interest rate or an increased marginal efficiency of capital. Considering all circumstances, a combination of the two is preferred, which is why lowering the money-wages for a particular industry will cause a good deal of investment.

[Anonymous No.9132764]

>>9132690
>with his carrot being that his children do not have to struggle through a life of toil as he did,
Which is fine. But some common sense is appropriate here.

Because these days, all of that can be done while the individual is still alive. Lets be honest here, do you need some grand fortune coming into your lap out of nowhere when you've already worked for your money?

[Anonymous No.9132782]

>>9132662
Private Investment is the middle man communism/socialism (to some extent?)
attempts to do away with.

Capitalism lets minorities of individuals coalesce to profit (each other, and the world). Absolutely natural enough. Any argument against capitalism complains 'this leads to some bad things', and 'in some sense though we would like to think we are all separate tribes competing at war to the death for the sake of our brand! We pass each other on the side walk on the way to work and nod with our starbucks in hand, and we pray to the same God, Green Ben Franklin.

We share the value of the dollar. So all this talk of how to effect economics with politics, its trying to find some ""''balance"" between; let the chaos of individuals forming groups seeking valuable individuals to profit run wild and create the worlds reality, and:

Maybe 10 year olds shouldnt be prostituting themselves to the child factory workers, and maybe the financial institutions that 'swindled' billions from the worlds average joes, get bailed out by them.
Maybe the masses shouldnt have to pay for millions of peoples livelihood, because top dawgs are profiting too much to pay their workers a living wage. Maybe the health and happiness ad security of all of our lives are more important than if 1 or 5000 people have 20 or 100 priceless cars

[Anonymous No.9132819]

>>9132756
I will... maybe, if you leaved me room or reason, respond after I read the rest but just thought to say: all of this has to do ultimately with:

There is only the individual, the world, and the quantity of potential dollars: The only rule of life (besides the Laws) is: get as much money as you can/need/want.

How, why, can anything interfere with that?

Well then you come to that I mentioned: Law. Make a law saying "that one rule... all that matters is the individual, focusing on getting as much money s they can and want and need, is not true... there needs to be ""more""

And what has been came up with? Collect taxes and give to the poor. The world continues to turn, """"everyones happy""" (or at least practically sustainably alive), the only issue is, that might be what the past years have been creeping up; when it then appears to become more desirable to be on welfare, than work your shit 9 dollar an hour job. Or why not everyone working a 9 dollar hour job also get on welfare... and then there is, #notallrich avoid paying taxes (which in consideration of all this clusterfuckery, it is hard to blame one... though shit needs to be clarified and sorted out. I grew up relatively lower middle class: if I ever ran into a billion dollars, I dont think I would be able to 'give a million dollars of real money, as taxes, away' no matter how much I got used to it. Also no $10,000 champagne for me; my party has been pooped for me, capitalism cucked me out of fun)

[Anonymous No.9132852]

>>9131561
>no one is going to invest into fixed-capital when you get a higher rate of return on speculation,
How can speculation be so Absolutely Profitable:

Must for every winner there be a loser? Or can both 'ride inflation' get on lower, get off higher, get on, get off higher... bank on ever new and more players entering the game?

[Anonymous No.9132886]

>>9131561
>no it's not, the reason for the increase in inequality is primarily the lack of real investments
no it's not, the reason for the increase in inequality is primarily the lack of real investments
Was it possible they meant 'wealth consolidation' as including, into 'financial instruments and markets and games'? People A make a lot of money, people B do not make as much. People A give the amount of money people B make; to Pot C to try to invest and make it more. Pot C gets a ton of money from people A. Invest it, get returns on their investment. People B is still making the same amount of money. People A is making more than they are, on the total amount they make invested, alone. Now people Bs wage is worth less, savings always decreasing too from inflation.

Is it not true that, necessarily, the more money here, the less money there?

And what is being asked for? The people with less money there, and the people that feel bad for them, wanting more?

And where will that come from? Burn candle from both ends, cut the bottom of the rug to sew to the top to make it longer, free lunch from the over unity machine?

The more pilled on one side... the less on the other, and the less available in the world, for the other to seek.

Well, we can print money and give it to the investors, to invest more, and make people A more money, and then the masses can keep their wages the same, and pay taxes, so that people B can subsist, and that is the wealth trickling down, right?

And plus, the poorest person in America is better off than poor people in any other country, they dont have mcdonalds or internet cafes in Africa. And dont mind whenever I am criticized I can only defend the positive value of my stance by claiming its technically not the absolute worst, though I am comparing technically the greatest and wealthiest nation to ever exist, to a bunch of prehistoric sheepherders, but regardless, if you really believe we all came from there you are welcome to go back, I will ever buy your one way.

[Anonymous No.9132915]

>>9131508

The thing I wonder about is this: How would libertarians stop unions from forming? After all, if people want to contract among themselves to set the terms under which they are wiling to sell labor, well, stopping them would be interfering with their ability to contract among themselves. Unthinkable.

[Anonymous No.9132921]

>>9131561
>>9132886
The main thing is, its not about me, you or us, its about abstract (and actual) productive/valueable people, seeking each other, to productively produce values. The 'problem' is, what to do with the people that are not worthy of playing along? The other problem is, the variances in values and worths of quantity of currency, so that there can be a person that does difficult demanding necessary work, carpentry or something, and get 9$ an hour, and someone else can get 1000 hour for doing more enjoyable easier work; which the answer I suppose by history has been declared as 'unions', which is very difficult theoretically and practically: have all carpenters say "either pay us more, or none of the necessary work gets done", at which case you start importing illegals, or teaching your neighbors kids how to frame a house.

[Anonymous No.9132931]

>>9132819
>How, why, can anything interfere with that?
Two things can

1)inheritance
2)usury due to continually increasing interest rates

And these were what Keynes railed against in his General Theory.

[Anonymous No.9132973]

The basic assumption of his book has no real empirical support and is, most probably, false. Pikkety is the equivalent of learning about cosmology by watching Youtube videos with Michio Kaku and Black Man. If you are really interested in macroeconomics, just buy Modern Principles: Macroeconomics by Cowen and Tabarrok, it will not make you look cool at hipster parties but you will actually learn things.

[Anonymous No.9132982]

>>9131561

[Anonymous No.9132992]

>>9131561
The main thing is, its not about me, you or us, its about abstract (and actual) productive/valueable people, seeking each other, to productively produce values. The 'problem' is, what to do with the people that are not worthy of playing along? The other problem is, the variances in values and worths of quantity of currency, so that there can be a person that does difficult demanding necessary work, carpentry or something, and get 9$ an hour, and someone else can get 1000 hour for doing more enjoyable easier work; which the answer I suppose by history has been declared as 'unions', which is very difficult theoretically and practically: have all carpenters say "either pay us more, or none of the necessary work gets done", at which case you start importing illegals, or teaching your neighbors kids how to frame a house.

Its like the total progression of history, our cooperations have produced the comforts and eases, inventions, infrastructures, advancements of space and info age science that are unimaginable to our ancestors 400 let alone 3000 years ago. And yet, many people still work the same hours, are potentially even more miserable than ever, are potentially more 'banal' than ever

[Anonymous No.9132995]

>>9129375
>redpill
>red

[Anonymous No.9133139]

>>9132995
It means Turkey.

[Anonymous No.9133154]

>>9131591
>What about the postulation by Keynes that the marginal efficiency of capital is simply just a premium over the interest and associated risk? In that case, the marginal efficiency of capital is actually extremely correlated with the interest rate.

But not all investors are investing with money they got form loans that they have to pay interest on?

Though I dont think I understand what you meant.

[Anonymous No.9133245]

>>9131913
>I have problems when families
>accruing the nation's cash reserves unto themselves, and increasing that wealthy generation after generation by continued asset purchase and diversification.

Why do you have problems with this? Why and how should it be illegal? A limit to how many assets a family name could purchase in a lifetime (and then describe the methods of enforcing that)?

[Anonymous No.9133276]

>>9132915
Far as I'm concerned unions are absolutely within the bounds of a libertarian systems, though I'll admit I'm not up on anti-union arguments by libertarians (as in saying unions shouldn't be allowed, it's not necessarily contradictory for a libertarian to doubt their effectiveness or utility).

[Anonymous No.9133278]

>>9132660
but the welfare state benefits them most: as the poster you responded to just potentially conceded too.

Instead of the Job Creators having to try to sacrifice their money to create more jobs to pay more workers: The Masses, just pay taxes to those who cant get a job.

[Anonymous No.9133287]

>>9132324
>One proposal I've seen is to have the central bank meet its inflation target by lending the government money at 0% that the government then gives directly to consumers.
You have never looked into the sketchiness of the Fed Reserve have you, or came across and/or scoffed at the conspiracies?

[Anonymous No.9133305]

>>9132764
That is all completely besides the point. As I mentioned:

There is only the individual, the world, and the quantity of potential dollars: The only rule of life (besides the Laws) is: get as much money as you can/need/want.

How, why, can anything interfere with that?

There exists Individual. There exists Demand/Dollars. The Individuals only responsibility is satisfying Demand/getting dollars.

Dollars = everything, life, happiness, to some extent health, free time etc.

Why should anyone want to/have to give up any of the dollars they win in this Game of Life?

[Anonymous No.9133320]

>>9132931
Well I meant in regards to 'successful individuals'.

We are not having these discussions because it sucks that successful people exist. We are having them because it sucks that many very unsuccessful people exist. And seemingly, the two are related in some way.

My question was asking, how do you lift the world from poverty, without 'punishing the successful'.

[Anonymous No.9133329]

>>9133276
>libertarians (as in saying unions shouldn't be allowed
Are there any 10 commandments libertarians generally agree on?

More than anything we are for Absolute liberty!!! except for this and this and article 3 section 4 statute 12 point 7.4 ...

[Anonymous No.9133363]

>>9129375
>take the redpill
False flag post.

[Anonymous No.9133390]

>>9133320
>My question was asking, how do you lift the world from poverty, without 'punishing the successful'.
And my point is, life isn't that simple. You wouldn't be punishing anyBODY for taxing inheritance, just the families, presumably after they've reached their twenties anyway.

>>9133305
Right, they don't. You asked me how can anything interfere with people working to get money. Two things can

1) indolence. The inability to work hard to produce things or perform services that benefit your fellow countrymen. Indolence is generated from excessive inheritance.

2) lack of opportunities. This is caused by excessively high interest rates, otherwise known as usury.

>>9133154
In other words, the amount of money you are reimbursed from through capital expenditure is over and above the equivalent you would be reimbursed with through loaning your own money out for an equivalent period, including the risk premium. What this means, is that as long as the marginal efficiency of capital is above zero, and the cost-unit of an additional product is below the price substantially to reward the entrepreneur and labor, more people will flock to the industry, lowering the marginal efficiency still further.

This concept of marginality is expounded in Menger's Principles when he talks about the added value one gets from giving up one asset (capital) and acquiring another (added product). As long as the latter is greater than the former, there is marginal efficiency, although due to fixed costs you can guarantee that when this number hits a certain relatively low, stable point, it ceases to rush toward zero at the same rate due to the barriers to entry.

[Anonymous No.9133396]

>>9129749
Damn, and gross people were invented in 1960 afterall.

[Anonymous No.9133398]

>>9129698
>PhD at 22
>mental midget

[Anonymous No.9133410]

>>9133245
>Why do you have problems with this?

Piketty's made the case for the problem, which is in the first 100 pages of the book being discussed in this thread.

[Anonymous No.9133533]

>>9129749
Is that a pregnant man in the top middle?

[Anonymous No.9133643]

>>9129375
I WILL CALL YOU OUT EVERTIME I SEE YOU FALSE FLAG NIGGER

[Anonymous No.9134034]

>>9133287

I've read articles critical of the Federal Reserve Baking system from a few perspectives. A lot of them are disguised gold-buggery. A few are from a left wing perspective that say the federal reserve winds up stifling wage growth by inflation targeting. I don't really have enough knowledge to have an opinion on any of them.

[Anonymous No.9134921]

>>9134034
>stifling wage growth by inflation targeting.
I wish that were the case. Sadly, it seems QEs are their main resort these days and frequently this just increases wages faster for every price increase than it does output.

The industries that are completely service based cause 'maximum inflation' because they don't add any wage-goods or consumer goods to the economy.

[Anonymous No.9135427]

>>9129375
This