Thomas Piketty

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Thomas Piketty

I have a friend who was president of the American Library Association. More than once she steered the Caldecott award committee to pick the best book in young adult fiction. When I took a course from her (mid 70’s), the most amazing thing she said was, “You won’t believe how expensive information will become in your lifetime.” This was before the internet of course. Over the years I have hounded her how she knew. Her answers boiled down to the financialization of everything and the weird way she saw it starting with publishing (in print) of children’s lit.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Thomas Piketty

We are close to closing off the public forums and going behind the paywall entirely as the cost of managing the noise level of the public forums to our standards is becoming the definition of diminishing returns.

That said, I was drawn into becoming a paying member because of reading the public forums. I imagine that's common and that new subscriptions would fall off. OTOH, if the public forums degenerate too much, new subscriptions will fall off too. Perhaps a more aggressive bouncing to Rant & Rave.

[davidstvz]

Re: Thomas Piketty

I think the public forum serves a useful PR function. Of course, the usefulness is minimized by the quality of the content.

Perhaps certain sections of the forum can remain public for reading while only paid subscribers are allowed to post. This way some public discussion can take place.

[vt]

Re: Thomas Piketty

Economics is the study of allocation of scarce resources. Political science is the study of which groups in a population control and distribute these resources.

Unfortunately passions on either side of the spectrum come into discussions. There are rules to keep discussions civil. No labeling, name calling or other attack on another poster should be tolerated.

Everyone of this forum seems to care for the plight of the poor and middle class; some of this feeling leads to upsetting others.

It would probably help a great deal for care to be taken that supporting links not be from extreme sources. Maybe keep any discussion that could be divisive off the public side, and be extremely careful what one introduces on the pay side.

As others have suggested the public side can be a positive way to encourage visitors to become members, but should not cause them to leave because of discord.

Both forums should adhere to the highest standards. If the public cannot then action should be taken to protect the integrity of the group.

We are all trying to figure out what happens in the global economy. ITulip is an oasis in the jungle of noise we encounter.

[littleshark]

Re: Thomas Piketty

I think the public forum serves a useful PR function. Of course, the usefulness is minimized by the quality of the content.

Perhaps certain sections of the forum can remain public for reading while only paid subscribers are allowed to post. This way some public discussion can take place.

I think if EJ allows the front page to continue as is where anyone can read a part of his latest essays, that is enough PR to get someone to want to pay to see more.

[shiny!]

Re: Thomas Piketty

I'll bite.

Having been raised in a family and subsequently starting one of my own, I think back to my own experience to evaluate these claims. Dad was the sole earner in our large household across the late 60s and 70s. In the 1980s, that pretty much vanished for us and most of my friends saw Mom go to go work. As for my own family, I earn considerably more than my dad did at his peak and my money buys about half as much as his, even less if you consider fuel, education and medical care. How different is that from your own experience, I wonder?

So based on this personal experience and integrated with the perspective of the iTulip thesis as I understand it, I'm confident that the claims in the article are pure bunk. There's no mention of the downward pressure on wages, never mind the loss of value of all wages for all workers in the last 30+ years. There's not a word about the great inflation and no talk at all about deindustrialization and the wage arbitration suffered by American workers and cheered on by the WSJ editorial page. Nope, it's all dem durn liburuls.

Ideologues like the Kochs use foundations like these for purposes of large-scale tax evasion and media manipulation in the service of their extreme political and religious ideology. These foundations launder political contributions through similar tax-exempt “charities” and build a legitimate facade for disseminating their message to legions of credulous ideological foot-soldiers and the clueless media. So I’d say there are few truths in this piece, lek, and even less reality. What do you imagine the state of all families and the culture, generally, would be if wages had kept pace with productivity increases over the past 30+ years?

A right-wing, evangelical religious foundation has some nerve making a claim on Pat Moynihan, but they count on the gullibility and historical amnesia of their audience to give them a pass. The far right has always loved Moynihan’s report because its findings on the state of the black family align so well with their own views of blacks. They are less enthusiastic in their support the report's recommendations. Because it seems even decades after its publication the right never bothers to read the report close enough to understand that the pathology it described is the effect, not the cause. Well, Charles Murray seems to get it but the poor man gets it from both his ideological opponents of the left and from his fellow conservatives, most recently for his suggestion (along with that other leftie, Dick Nixon) of a national basic income scheme as a potential solution.

Moynihan’s report concluded that without access to jobs and the means to contribute meaningful support to a family, black men would become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers and that this would cause rates of divorce, abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket, leading to vast increases in the numbers of female-headed households and the poverty, low educational achievement, and increased abuse and neglect associated with them. And now enough time has passed where we've seen whites follow the same trajectory once reserved for the black underclass. The issue has less to do with black than it does with green, but the authors of the piece don't seem to want to talk about that.

Excellent post. Thank you.

[shiny!]

Re: Thomas Piketty

We are close to closing off the public forums and going behind the paywall entirely as the cost of managing the noise level of the public forums to our standards is becoming the definition of diminishing returns.

Apologies to all if I have been a contributor to counterproductive noise.

[charliebrown]

Re: Thomas Piketty

That would alienate me. I don't have the budget for $375 a year subscription. cash flow is tight and getting tighter.

It's your site, do as you like. You have given me a gaggle of information over the years.

[EJ]

Re: Thomas Piketty

That said, I was drawn into becoming a paying member because of reading the public forums. I imagine that's common and that new subscriptions would fall off. OTOH, if the public forums degenerate too much, new subscriptions will fall off too.

That's the trade-off.

Perhaps a more aggressive bouncing to Rant & Rave.

Indeed but this requires continuous monitoring and engagement by trained admins and that's not costless.

Several members have suggested a low cost "managed public" forums subscription priced at break-even to our cost of monitoring and management, along the lines of $49.95 per year.

[vt]

Re: Thomas Piketty

I meant to say the the individual who made these comments seemed to accuse you of "wanting to sterilizing the poor" as well as call a number of posters "bare assed fascists" which may have included myself.

I did not mean to insinuate you advocated sterilization, though one other poster did. My apologies.

Of course I wonder how this poster would view China's one child policy and the abortions of millions of female fetuses and babies? Is China fascist?

Such accusations and loaded words should not be allowed on this forum, as well as attacks on any poster.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Thomas Piketty

Galbraith on Piketty

whole review at

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/artic...-first-century

Finally, there is the estate and gift tax—a jewel of the Progressive era. This Piketty rightly favors, but for the wrong reason. The main point of the estate tax is not to raise revenue, nor even to slow the creation of outsized fortunes per se; the tax does not interfere with creativity or creative destruction. The key point is to block the formation of dynasties. And the great virtue of this tax, as applied in the United States, is the culture of conspicuous philanthropy that it fosters, recycling big wealth to universities, hospitals, churches, theaters, libraries, museums, and small magazines.

These are the nonprofits that create about 8 percent of U.S. jobs, and whose services enhance the living standards of the whole population. Obviously the tax that fuels this philanthropy is today much eroded; dynasty is a huge political problem. But unlike the capital levy, the estate tax remains viable, in principle, because it requires that wealth be appraised only once, on the demise of the holder. Much more could be done if the law were tightened up, with a high threshold, a high rate, no loopholes, and less use of funds for nefarious politics, including efforts to destroy the estate tax.

In sum, Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a weighty book, replete with good information on the flows of income, transfers of wealth, and the distribution of financial resources in some of the world’s wealthiest countries. Piketty rightly argues, from the beginning, that good economics must begin—or at least include—a meticulous examination of the facts. Yet he does not provide a very sound guide to policy. And despite its great ambitions, his book is not the accomplished work of high theory that its title, length, and reception (so far) suggest.

[Woodsman]

Re: Thomas Piketty

Galbraith on Piketty

whole review at

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/artic...-first-century

Finally, there is the estate and gift tax—a jewel of the Progressive era. This Piketty rightly favors, but for the wrong reason. The main point of the estate tax is not to raise revenue, nor even to slow the creation of outsized fortunes per se; the tax does not interfere with creativity or creative destruction. The key point is to block the formation of dynasties. And the great virtue of this tax, as applied in the United States, is the culture of conspicuous philanthropy that it fosters, recycling big wealth to universities, hospitals, churches, theaters, libraries, museums, and small magazines.

These are the nonprofits that create about 8 percent of U.S. jobs, and whose services enhance the living standards of the whole population. Obviously the tax that fuels this philanthropy is today much eroded; dynasty is a huge political problem. But unlike the capital levy, the estate tax remains viable, in principle, because it requires that wealth be appraised only once, on the demise of the holder. Much more could be done if the law were tightened up, with a high threshold, a high rate, no loopholes, and less use of funds for nefarious politics, including efforts to destroy the estate tax.

In sum, Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a weighty book, replete with good information on the flows of income, transfers of wealth, and the distribution of financial resources in some of the world’s wealthiest countries. Piketty rightly argues, from the beginning, that good economics must begin—or at least include—a meticulous examination of the facts. Yet he does not provide a very sound guide to policy. And despite its great ambitions, his book is not the accomplished work of high theory that its title, length, and reception (so far) suggest.

Galbraith is a national treasure. Do check out the excellent series on Inequality.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/tag/our-inequality

[Andreuccio]

Re: Thomas Piketty

I have a friend who was president of the American Library Association. More than once she steered the Caldecott award committee to pick the best book in young adult fiction. When I took a course from her (mid 70’s), the most amazing thing she said was, “You won’t believe how expensive information will become in your lifetime.” This was before the internet of course. Over the years I have hounded her how she knew. Her answers boiled down to the financialization of everything and the weird way she saw it starting with publishing (in print) of children’s lit.

She must have been impressive indeed. The Caldecott is typically awarded "to the artist of the most distinguished American picture book for children."

You're probably thinking of the Newbery, though that isn't really aimed at young adult fiction either, but rather at fiction for children. The lesser known Michael L. Printz Award is the ALA's award aimed at young adult lit.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Thomas Piketty

It was the Newbery.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Thomas Piketty

That's the trade-off.

That's not the only trade-off. I'm not sure what the public section did for your book sales. I know I'm good for at least 3, and Lord knows what sales I'm unaware of that conversations may have brought.

I obviously have vested self-interest in having you maintain the public section. It is not what it once was. But it is still a more consistent, civil, but most importantly long-term forum for online conversation than exists almost anywhere. Were I you, I'd be proud of that.

Still, if it costs you money and/or makes you unhappy, there is no reason to keep it going. I wish you the best, regardless of your decision, and I encourage you to consider intermediate options for revenue generation outside of the annual fee model.