rakushka: (Default)
[personal profile] rakushka
Кто-нибудь думает почитать новую книжку Томаса Пикети "Капитал в 21ом веке"? Столько шума, столько шума, народ говорит, просто новый Карл Маркс обьявился, книжка распродаётся глобально, хотя могу представить, что читать её несколько сложнее, чем пляжное чтиво.

Date: 2014-05-02 03:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lentochka.livejournal.com
Ja - net :)

Date: 2014-05-02 03:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
:).
Народ зачитывается, а учитывая, что это - занудная экономическая книжка, то это довольно биг дил. Как мужик прихватил-то!

Date: 2014-05-02 03:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lentochka.livejournal.com
nu ladno, davai ty pochitai, a potom mne napoesh :)

Date: 2014-05-02 03:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lelia-br.livejournal.com
Читать не буду. Но взамен посмотрела лекцию и прочитала рецензию в New Republic (очень хорошая статья).

Date: 2014-05-02 04:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] logt.livejournal.com
Спасибо. А лекция? ;-)

Date: 2014-05-02 06:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
О, смотри, это даже Боб Соллоу ревью написал!

Date: 2014-05-02 06:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lelia-br.livejournal.com
Ну! больше не надо!

Date: 2014-05-02 04:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lelia-br.livejournal.com
Кроме того я смотрела пару лекций Роберта Рейха в Беркли, он говорит ровно о тех же вещах уже давно.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCu-XnVxhfk
Edited Date: 2014-05-02 04:26 pm (UTC)

Date: 2014-05-02 04:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] logt.livejournal.com
Спасибo!

Date: 2014-05-02 05:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
Да сейчас только ленивый про это не говорит.

Date: 2014-05-02 03:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
No way.
Why read nonsense? :)

Date: 2014-05-02 03:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
Wall Street Journal editorial page said so? :)

Date: 2014-05-02 03:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
Actually I unsubscribed from WSJ :) Too expensive.

I am not a fan of communism or extreme socialism

Date: 2014-05-02 05:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
It's not a book on communism or extreme socialism. He analyzes huge amounts of data and makes conclusions. You may not agree with his solutions, but we know that rising inequality is a problem that eventually leads to social unrest (October revolution didn't happen in a vacuum). It's a big scholarly work, and it's kind of amazing how popular this book is, considering it's not exactly an easy read.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
I don't think it is amazing at all. He is obviously great at marketing plus has a strong desire to be vocal and scandalous.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
What do you base your opinion on? I don't get it. I don't think it's about marketing at all - these types of books come out all the time - not too long ago there was another book by an MIT professor (who taught one of my classes) about wealth inequality that kind of said the same thing - it was popular, but not as popular as this one. The only marketing trick about this guy is that he's really really smart - got his PhD from London School of Economics at 22, and that he complied a lot of data for his analysis.

Date: 2014-05-02 04:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] logt.livejournal.com
Ya dobrovol'tsem po prochteniu hochu naznachit' svoego muzha, on takoe vpolne asilit, a potom mne napoet.

Vse chto pishut pro knizhku, i interview vchera slushala s Piketty u Diane Rehm, ochen' interesno. No sama ya ne chtets takih kirpichei. A ty sobiraeshsya?

Date: 2014-05-02 05:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
He was on On Point twice already - that's where I heard about him.

Date: 2014-05-02 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ka-10.livejournal.com
Да, да, слышали :) Биг дил. Возьму в библиотеке.

Ревью хорошее читала в репаблик.

Date: 2014-05-02 05:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
:)
Ревьюз везде хорошие - все просто горячим кипятком уписываются.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
That's what I'm seeing. Did you see anything different? Yesterday I listened to the podcast with Picketty and the head of econ department of Harvard who disagreed with him, but still thought the book was amazing. I don't understand why you are so dismissive? Ne chitala, no osuzhdam? :)

Date: 2014-05-02 06:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
I have read some of the conclusions. There are plenty of studies (and human history) that show that what he is saying is wrong.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
This is a pretty meaningless statement I have to say.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
What is meaningless? That I find his conclusions absurd based on other studies I know about?
Edited Date: 2014-05-02 06:31 pm (UTC)

Date: 2014-05-02 06:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
Which studies do you know about? I haven't heard of any big studies lately in this regard that make starkly different conclusions. All the studies that came out lately support what he says more or less.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
On taxes for example. 80-85% taxes for earnings over $500K will hurt the economy and innovation. Plenty of research on that

Date: 2014-05-02 06:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
Can you show me at least one study?
He's talking more on the general idea, not putting out any specific numbers for any specific economy. I would agree that taxing 85% of 500K earners is not a good idea, but 500K currently in the US is not such a huge income.

Date: 2014-05-02 08:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
Based on what I read Piketty urges an 80% tax rate on incomes starting at "$500,000 or $1 million." Specific numbers actually.

I don't particularly like this write up -- you can ignore it. But there are many references at the end. So there is plenty of research going on on the subject of taxes and growth:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth

Date: 2014-05-03 01:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
I have heard him interviewed twice, and I never heard him suggesting specific numbers - I think that would be weird. He is suggesting this for all countries, btw, not just the US, and obviously, these numbers would be different for each country. Anyway, I'll know more once I actually read the book, obviously.
Yeah, the writeup is not great. I will take a look at the studies, but I also have to wonder what impact inequality has on economic growth, which would obviously be higher in countries with lower tax rates.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
Btw the arguments and comments like:
"This is meaningless" or "did you read this in X" are not very powerful :)

Date: 2014-05-02 06:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
Well, that's what you're doing. You are basically dismissing his opinion outright because you disagree with him. I personally don't know if I agree or disagree, but I see that he's getting glowing reviews on his book, and I'm interested to read it.

Date: 2014-05-02 06:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pro-sha.livejournal.com
I am dismissing because I disagree with conclusions based on other research

I won't be able to get through. It will be too frustrating. As a data person you should understand how easy it is to draw the conclusions you want to from data (especially limited)

Date: 2014-05-02 06:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
Of course, but can't you say the same thing about the studies that you're sighting?
Currently I'm looking at reviews by other economists, and they all find his work impressive. I can read it and try to form my own opinion. You never read anything you disagree with? :)

Date: 2014-05-02 11:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anna-i.livejournal.com
To use Russian revolution as an example of what happens because of social inequality is just as meaningless. Comparing inequality in modern America or Europe to Russia 100 years ago is like comparing apples and oranges, only worse. Do you really think that taxing that 1% out of existence will make anyone better off? Why don't you resort to the example of the Soviet Union in this case? Everyone was equally poor. Didn't work very well somehow.

Date: 2014-05-03 01:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
Well, Russia is obviously an extreme example, but not an irrelevant one. Pretty much all the revolutions happened ultimately because of high inequality, like the French revolution (which was not communist, but a revolution nevertheless). The more recent example would be what's happening in Ukraine today - people came out to protest ultimately because their standard of living was going down and the power and money was concentrated in the hands of the few. If the economic situation would have been better in Ukraine, we may not have seen all the Maidan protests that happened. Ultimately, когда людям есть что жрать, они особо не жжужат, или жжужат, но ничего не делают, типа как в России.

Date: 2014-05-04 02:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anna-i.livejournal.com
Revolutions happen because of many factors combined, economic inequality only one of them, although obviously very important. In France, working people were taxed out of their earnings, while the aristocracy and church didn't contibute anything. In America the poor don't pay taxes at all for example. Other reasons might be high level of corruption, crime, social inequality, lack of legal means to change the government. To blame all economic evils on inequality to me means riding on a wave of a very popular sentiment. Inequality is not so high in France, however their unemployment has been at10% for the past 30 years. Greece is a socialist country, 70% of working people were employed by the government and could not be layed off by law. Why not discuss the effects of the dangers of growing government bureaucracy and regulations on economy.

In Ukraine people weren't starving, although Yanukovich did a great job robbing the country. So this is not exactly the case of economic inequality, it is a matter of having a criminal in power. Our infamous 1% are not doing anything strictly illegal, most of them at least. And they probably do more to create jobs in this country than most other sectors. It really doesn't bother me that Bill Gates or Sergei Brin are rich beyond words - they fully deserve it.

Date: 2014-05-04 03:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mamaracha.livejournal.com
>In France, working people were taxed out of their earnings, >while the aristocracy and church didn't contribute anything.
Sounds familiar, no? :) Taxes on the middle class right now in percentage terms are higher than on the 1% and on corporations, because they are able to hide/manage their assets - rather, to hire accountants to do it for them.
BTW, I think your points about France kind of prove my point - even with high unemployment (but higher social protection) they haven't had much of a civil unrest in the last 30 years. Corruption is an important factor, yes, but many countries are corrupt, like, say, China, but it has to be a combination of bad economy and corruption to provoke social unrest. Ultimately, if people are not super struggling with feeding their families, they will take lots of crap from the government (think Saudi Arabia), but once that's not the case - it's a different story.

Profile

rakushka: (Default)
rakushka

July 2015

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122 232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:56 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios