Some are more equal than others...

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"The Central Contradiction of Capitalism: r > g

The overall conclusion of this study is that a market economy based on private property, if left to
itself, contains powerful forces of convergence, associated in particular with the diffusion of
knowledge and skills; but it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially
threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based.

The principal destabilizing force has to do with the fact that the private rate of return on capital, r,
can be significantly higher for long periods of time than the rate of growth of income and output, g.

The inequality r > g implies that wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly than output and
wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably
tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. Once
constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future.

The consequences for the long-term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying,
especially when one adds that the return on capital varies directly with the size of the initial stake and
that the divergence in the wealth distribution is occurring on a global scale.

The problem is enormous, and there is no simple solution. Growth can of course be encouraged by
investing in education, knowledge, and nonpolluting technologies. But none of these will raise the
growth rate to 4 or 5 percent a year. History shows that only countries that are catching up with more
advanced economies—such as Europe during the three decades after World War II or China and other
emerging countries today—can grow at such rates. For countries at the world technological frontier—
and thus ultimately for the planet as a whole—there is ample reason to believe that the growth rate
will not exceed 1–1.5 percent in the long run, no matter what economic policies are adopted.

With an average return on capital of 4–5 percent, it is therefore likely that r > g will again become
the norm in the twenty-first century, as it had been throughout history until the eve of World War I. In
the twentieth century, it took two world wars to wipe away the past and significantly reduce the return
on capital, thereby creating the illusion that the fundamental structural contradiction of capitalism (r >
g) had been overcome.

To be sure, one could tax capital income heavily enough to reduce the private return on capital to
less than the growth rate. But if one did that indiscriminately and heavy-handedly, one would risk
killing the motor of accumulation and thus further reducing the growth rate. Entrepreneurs would then
no longer have the time to turn into rentiers, since there would be no more entrepreneurs.

The right solution is a progressive annual tax on capital. This will make it possible to avoid an
endless inegalitarian spiral while preserving competition and incentives for new instances of
primitive accumulation. For example, I earlier discussed the possibility of a capital tax schedule with
rates of 0.1 or 0.5 percent on fortunes under 1 million euros, 1 percent on fortunes between 1 and 5
million euros, 2 percent between 5 and 10 million euros, and as high as 5 or 10 percent for fortunes of
several hundred million or several billion euros. This would contain the unlimited growth of global
inequality of wealth, which is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained in the long run and
that ought to worry even the most fervent champions of the self-regulated market. Historical
experience shows, moreover, that such immense inequalities of wealth have little to do with the
entrepreneurial spirit and are of no use in promoting growth. Nor are they of any “common utility,” to
borrow the nice expression from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen with
which I began this book.

The difficulty is that this solution, the progressive tax on capital, requires a high level of
international cooperation and regional political integration. It is not within the reach of the nationstates
in which earlier social compromises were hammered out. Many people worry that moving
toward greater cooperation and political integration within, say, the European Union only undermines
existing achievements (starting with the social states that the various countries of Europe constructed
in response to the shocks of the twentieth century) without constructing anything new other than a vast
market predicated on ever purer and more perfect competition. Yet pure and perfect competition
cannot alter the inequality r > g, which is not the consequence of any market “imperfection.” On the
contrary. Although the risk is real, I do not see any genuine alternative: if we are to regain control of
capitalism, we must bet everything on democracy—and in Europe, democracy on a European scale.

Larger political communities such as the United States and China have a wider range of options, but
for the small countries of Europe, which will soon look very small indeed in relation to the global
economy, national withdrawal can only lead to even worse frustration and disappointment than
currently exists with the European Union. The nation-state is still the right level at which to modernize
any number of social and fiscal policies and to develop new forms of governance and shared
ownership intermediate between public and private ownership, which is one of the major challenges
for the century ahead. But only regional political integration can lead to effective regulation of the
globalized patrimonial capitalism of the twenty-first century."

-Capital in the Twenty-First Century (conclusion)

http://resistir.info/livros/piketty_capital_in_the_21_century_2014.pdf
Click to expand...
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

~Jabberwocky By Lewis Carroll

i can copy/paste too
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
ohh the magical "racial slur database" that includes Ese, Vato, Mestizo, African, Bro, Canadian (????), Oriental, and even mispellings of the word Hmong. , and pretty much any word that describes race, just to cover all the faux butthurt bases

cram it with walnuts.
Click to expand...
so now you can cite stuff. how about that time stamp then?

anyhoo, are you trying to tell me you affectionately describe obama as a "halfrican"?

because i have never seen you describe africa in a positive light, quite the opposite. nor have i ever seen you utter an affectionate or even positive word about black people in general.

as i recall, your thoughts on the subject are that "niggers" are "like that everywhere".

so when you use the term "halfrican" to describe obama, are you saying you use it in a positive or affectionate fashion?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
(Spend Every Dime)

Not what the theory says

(spend even more on credit)

Not what the theory says

(?????)

???

Profit

???

Yeah, you've shown beyond doubt you don't understand what you're even arguing against

Just like I said
Click to expand...
showed you POINT BY POINT what the theory believes, including

1: saving is bad (some even argue saving is THEFT from the economy) therefore we are expected to spend every dime we have (and the govt should too) this is fundamental to keynesian theory.
2: debt is good, it increases the imaginary "aggregate demand" when you spend those debt monies on pretty much anything, even pointless Make-Work projects.
3: the rest of the theroy IS just meaningless gibberish about how taxation followed by govt spending somehow actually MULTIPLIES those taxed monies over and over and over again (literally ?????)
4: and then your shit will magically become prosperous (profit)

you cant even understand the idiotic theory when i break it down to the South Park level.

you truely are clownshoes.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so now you can cite stuff. how about that time stamp then?

anyhoo, are you trying to tell me you affectionately describe obama as a "halfrican"?

because i have never seen you describe africa in a positive light, quite the opposite. nor have i ever seen you utter an affectionate or even positive word about black people in general.

as i recall, your thoughts on the subject are that "niggers" are "like that everywhere".

so when you use the term "halfrican" to describe obama, are you saying you use it in a positive or affectionate fashion?
Click to expand...
make up whatever shit you like, youre goin back on my ignore list, permanently.

you really are a useless clump of smegma.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
showed you POINT BY POINT what the theory believes, including

1: saving is bad (some even argue saving is THEFT from the economy) therefore we are expected to spend every dime we have (and the govt should too) this is fundamental to keynesian theory.
2: debt is good, it increases the imaginary "aggregate demand" when you spend those debt monies on pretty much anything, even pointless Make-Work projects.
3: the rest of the theroy IS just meaningless gibberish about how taxation followed by govt spending somehow actually MULTIPLIES those taxed monies over and over and over again (literally ?????)
4: and then your shit will magically become prosperous (profit)

you cant even understand the idiotic theory when i break it down to the South Park level.

you truely are clownshoes.
Click to expand...
You broke down your own retarded interpretation of a theory of economics, not the actual theory of economics

Congratulations, this is for you



You seem to do that with all the things you hate and/or disagree with... climate change, evolution..

You must think "well I can't refute that shit, lets just say it's something else and argue with that! Hazaah! Kynesey ol boy, you're a genius!"

Meanwhile, everybody else can't stop laughing at you
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
make up whatever shit you like, youre goin back on my ignore list, permanently.

you really are a useless clump of smegma.
Click to expand...
what was i making up?

i just want to know in what manner you refer to obama as a "halfrican", and see if that is consistent with your other stated views about afica, africans, or black (fuck, why not just non-white with you?) people in general.

you are a spirited human being, and i want to know in what spirit you so often refer to obama as a "halfrican".
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Meanwhile, everybody else can't stop laughing at you
Click to expand...
"everybody" is a horrible qualifier in this case.

a vanishingly small contingent of people laugh with him. i used to laugh with the guy until i found out more about him.

his style is likeable, but the views he expresses will repel anyone with half a brain who understands what he is saying.

and i've come increasingly to the realization that he is actually not that smart at all.

he's arrogant. uppity even, yet well-spoken. but he ain't that smart at all.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
"everybody" is a horrible qualifier in this case.

a vanishingly small contingent of people laugh with him. i used to laugh with the guy until i found out more about him.

his style is likeable, but the views he expresses will repel anyone with half a brain who understands what he is saying.

and i've come increasingly to the realization that he is actually not that smart at all.

he's arrogant. uppity even, yet well-spoken. but he ain't that smart at all.
Click to expand...
I'd say that's a pretty good assessment, I used to feel the same way about him, but saying shit like Krugman is an idiot, standing with the 3% in opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and babbling on about arguments nobody makes shows him to be a pretty dim bulb.. I think he took a few english classes in community college, but not much else..
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'd say that's a pretty good assessment, I used to feel the same way about him, but saying shit like Krugman is an idiot, standing with the 3% in opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and babbling on about arguments nobody makes shows him to be a pretty dim bulb.. I think he took a few english classes in community college, but not much else..
Click to expand...
i checked out when he said (and continues to say) that rushton is/was a respected academic.

that's something that only one type of person would ever say, and it is not an objective person.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i checked out when he said (and continues to say) that rushton is/was a respected academic.

that's something that only one type of person would ever say, and it is not an objective person.
Click to expand...
What is the context of him supporting Rushton? I'm curious about how that got brought up
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
lmfao

@ travisw completely owned him

That is astonishing, man.. How can anyone take this guy seriously..
Click to expand...
so your rebuttal is to squawk Nuh UHH!! and pretend that keynesian economics is like really deep and shit, and i have maliciously misrepresented it's swag...

except i described it accurately direct from your sacred tome, Wikipedia.

perhaps you dont know your side's bullshit fairytale as well as you believe.

why dont you explain EXACTLY where my assessment is wrong?

it should be easy, theres only FOUR MAIN POINTS to the whole theory, and one of em is "????"

also, if you bothered to read the thread, you would know that ONE of rushton's books was decried as "racist" and then the floodgates of bullshit stories opened, yet he continued to publish in peer reviewed journals, maintained his position as a profgessor at the univ, and was hardly "discredited"

if thats getting "owned" then perhaps you need to check how badly you and bucklefuckle got served in this thread.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
why dont you explain EXACTLY where my assessment is wrong?
Click to expand...
How was your nap?

I don't feel explaining economics to you would be beneficial to me. It's your responsibility to understand the arguments you try to refute, not mine. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to teach you basic economics. I'll let Krugman do that.. He's far smarter than you and I..

Keynesian economics is far above your scope of understanding, as evident by your criticisms. Like I said, you're arguing against points and perspectives that simply don't exist outside your mind.

 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'd say that's a pretty good assessment, I used to feel the same way about him, but saying shit like Krugman is an idiot, standing with the 3% in opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and babbling on about arguments nobody makes shows him to be a pretty dim bulb.. I think he took a few english classes in community college, but not much else..
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
i checked out when he said (and continues to say) that rushton is/was a respected academic.

that's something that only one type of person would ever say, and it is not an objective person.
Click to expand...
You are talkign about Kynes.
He used to actually be funny sometimes.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
I do so love it when Kynes is posting. Our two resident idiots spouting off about his stupidity as he destroys them in plain sight. Hey, let's drop a few posts agreeing with each other and desperately state anyone who agrees with him is in the fringe. THAT will cleverly disguise the painfully obvious truth he embarrasses you repeatedly.

You two really are dim bulbs.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
How was your nap?

I don't feel explaining economics to you would be beneficial to me. It's your responsibility to understand the arguments you try to refute, not mine. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to teach you basic economics. I'll let Krugman do that.. He's far smarter than you and I..

Keynesian economics is far above your scope of understanding, as evident by your criticisms. Like I said, you're arguing against points and perspectives that simply don't exist outside your mind.
Click to expand...
Translation::
you cant find a flaw in the analysis, you dont understand the material sufficiently to craft a rebuttal, therefore, it's appeal to authority time, then you pretend to be holding the moral high ground.

milton freidman took exactly the same evidence, and developed an economic theory that is 100% counter to Kruggie's but BOTH have prestigious ivy league phd's, both have nobel prizes in the same field, but both cannot be right.

which one to choose...

friedman';s theories conform to the models of rational, logical economics which can be seen operating in everybody;s budget every day.
friedman's theories dont require handwaving, magical bankers hats that create money from thin air, and can be explained to any high school graduate fairly readily
friedman won his nobel in the mid 70's before they started giving em away in crackerjack boxes. (yasser arafat, obama and al gore have them now too... seriously)

kruggie's theories?
not so much.

and of course you prolly think you have "Owned" me in this thread.
too bad youre the one out there picking cotton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top