Mr. Piketty's theory is all based on the concept of the benevolent government taxing and redistributing wealth. Whether private industry or government the root cause of inequality in the world is a dearth of leadership. We need leaders that will be leaders (do I repeat myself, very well, I repeat myself) and overcome the effects of colonialism and its cousin, imperialism.
Piketty makes a sensible argument, in my opinion. I think that legislating against tax havens, taxing wealth (progressively) and taking a more aggressive stance towards tax fraud and legal loopholes designed in order to allow corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax is the most sensible way to police the (self-)destructive nature of extremely deregulated free-market capitalism. However, I feel that arguments like this, made by Piketty and films like "Inside Job" get lost in the everyday political debate, and it is hard to even talk about taxation without getting overrun by arguments like "I know how to spend my money better than the government" or "taxes lead to a big government that threatens my freedom and democratic rights". The sometimes depressing lack of insight shown in political debate doesn't really take into account that progressive taxation can be a tool of democracy, by ensuring that the country is not just run by rich corporations and individuals with lobbying power. One thing I don't agree with Piketty on though is that he doesn't believe inequality to be inherently a bad thing. I think it is, as radical as that may sound. I think a lot of Piketty's arguments are valid and pragmatic, but they are not critical against the entire structure of capitalism in a way that I think would be necessary to create substantial, long-term change. - Malin Niklasson
I do not know if Mr. Piketty really used "cherry-picking data" or not, but the basic rule that he said about how to maintain social inequality at a normal lever is understandable. I think that taxation to decrease the amount of economic wealth to some high class individuals will work well in trying to keep the economic of the country is a kind of stable manner. In that way, as it was talked many times in class, the income mobility will not be higher for people that already has tons of resources than with the ones that do not have it. Also, in that way, the gap between the elite and the rest of the society will not have this great gap between them.
Im not surprised that inequality is getting worst, however inequality is necessary in capitalism. The rich owners will certainly always make more than the employees.
Piketty brings up a lot of good points regarding how we should be policing the wealthy business owners that are able to bypass tax-paying and avoid other types of fee's just because they are rich. It is a huge flaw in the open market system and should be fixed in order to more fairly distribute wealth into the middle and lower classes who can't avoid the taxes they pay. We shouldn't live in a society where the rich can get richer and richer and not pay taxes on their exponential growth, while the lower classes struggle to make ends meet.
If the average American knows that the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer, why not protest. Not buy from corporate America, but the local business in our neighborhoods. Making that small of a change would reduce the amount of money the wealthy businesses are making and increase struggling local businesses. -Sara -Ruth
I appreciate that Piketty makes it clear that this measure is not the only way of measuring the inequality a country has because there are many other factors that influence it. I also was surprised by the statement he made that only 1/5 of wealth needed to be reinvested to ensure that the wealth rises in comparison to the national income.
Piketty does a good job of explaining some of the reasons why inequality naturally rises and gives me confidence that we are able to understand ever-changing economics (to some degree). However, the fact that he doesn’t have solid responses to the issues shows just how dubious the act of trying to fix the system is. He mentions how redistribution practices such as inflation and expropriation have undesirable consequences, but I don’t think it is limited to these extreme actions. Any policy change for the purpose of affecting equality could cause a lot of harm whereas the potential for improvement is pretty small. At the end of the day, I don’t think economists themselves will be able to come up with anything revolutionary to fix inequality, while an entrepreneur might in the distant future.
Inequality will for the rest of our existence get worse. I believe that this is inevitable because of the way people respect the resources they have. When I was a little girl, my parents did not give me things that I would not take care of. To go off on a tangent... Looking at recent incidents, I believe that the people who are looting and unpeacfully protesting are much like children who expect to be given things and not taking care of them, and then using the tragic death of a man as a platform to shed light on the problems of inequality, all the while raising inequality and destroying what "little" resources are available. this is obviously just one example, and maybe in bad taste, but how can we expect more equality when members of minority parties choose racially motivated violence and destruction over peace.
I don't want to move the conversation too far from the video posted above but I think its very easy to just characterize the Baltimore protests as random violence and it's even easier to say from our safe, secluded space of being white college students that they should just "choose peace." They've been choosing peace for years and it has been shown again and again that things are getting worse, so they react with the only recourse left to them. What else are they supposed to do when victimized by the police? They can't go to the police since they're the ones victimizing them. They can't go to the city officials.
To relate back to the video. I don't think inequality is an inevitable force. Resources play a huge role of course but things have been changed for the better before and they will in the future too. Destruction and rioting has worked to battle inequality in the past (Boston Tea Party, Bastille Day, Gaza Freedom Flotilla) and it will in the future as well.
I completely agree, with @danny Paris I do not think inequality is an inevitable force. For example in Baltimore when some of the people were looting , some were looting paper towel, toilet paper, and the every day thing we overlook as a need. That alone to me shows the inequality as a force . And again it will remain one until we change inequality.
Piketty makes obvious arguments about income inequality. Income inequality will always exist, and it will continue to grow in this country in particular. The fact that taxes continue to make the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer is one of the biggest issues that take place in this country and it may continue to get worse, depending on who's in control in office.
Inequality is a choice and the issue we are facing is not inequality its self but addressing it. we need to take a more assertive approach and bring it to the media.These high officials would like to make us believe things are improving and are changing but the truth of the matter is that the gap is growing exponentially.Like i stated above inequality is a choice we make its not something that's going to fix itself.
Our current system of economy allows the wealthy to get out of paying taxes, even though they're the ones who can actually afford to pay them, so I agree with Piketty that we should be introducing policies that regulate the wealthy more strictly. It allows the rich to keep on getting richer and richer, while those underneath them suffer. Politicians tell us that inequality is getting better, but the gap continues to grow. Whatever course of action we take, we need to do something before the rich end up destroying the country.
I agree with the arguments Piketty made about solutions for income inequality in the world. Taxation for the richer classes can help stabilize income rates and closes the gap between upper and lower classes. Although this may not be the probable choice of upper-class citizens, spreading the wealth through this gradual taxation will help decrease income inequality; thus, providing more financial opportunities for lower class citizens.
Picketty's formula is unfortunately what is plaguing economic stagnation in America. Gains for the top don't always translate into gains for everyone else. The "trickle-down" approach to economics doesn't work. -Gregory Brown
Mr. Piketty's theory is all based on the concept of the benevolent government taxing and redistributing wealth. Whether private industry or government the root cause of inequality in the world is a dearth of leadership. We need leaders that will be leaders (do I repeat myself, very well, I repeat myself) and overcome the effects of colonialism and its cousin, imperialism.
ReplyDeletePiketty makes a sensible argument, in my opinion. I think that legislating against tax havens, taxing wealth (progressively) and taking a more aggressive stance towards tax fraud and legal loopholes designed in order to allow corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax is the most sensible way to police the (self-)destructive nature of extremely deregulated free-market capitalism. However, I feel that arguments like this, made by Piketty and films like "Inside Job" get lost in the everyday political debate, and it is hard to even talk about taxation without getting overrun by arguments like "I know how to spend my money better than the government" or "taxes lead to a big government that threatens my freedom and democratic rights". The sometimes depressing lack of insight shown in political debate doesn't really take into account that progressive taxation can be a tool of democracy, by ensuring that the country is not just run by rich corporations and individuals with lobbying power. One thing I don't agree with Piketty on though is that he doesn't believe inequality to be inherently a bad thing. I think it is, as radical as that may sound. I think a lot of Piketty's arguments are valid and pragmatic, but they are not critical against the entire structure of capitalism in a way that I think would be necessary to create substantial, long-term change. - Malin Niklasson
ReplyDeleteI do not know if Mr. Piketty really used "cherry-picking data" or not, but the basic rule that he said about how to maintain social inequality at a normal lever is understandable. I think that taxation to decrease the amount of economic wealth to some high class individuals will work well in trying to keep the economic of the country is a kind of stable manner. In that way, as it was talked many times in class, the income mobility will not be higher for people that already has tons of resources than with the ones that do not have it. Also, in that way, the gap between the elite and the rest of the society will not have this great gap between them.
ReplyDeleteIm not surprised that inequality is getting worst, however inequality is necessary in capitalism. The rich owners will certainly always make more than the employees.
ReplyDeletePiketty brings up a lot of good points regarding how we should be policing the wealthy business owners that are able to bypass tax-paying and avoid other types of fee's just because they are rich. It is a huge flaw in the open market system and should be fixed in order to more fairly distribute wealth into the middle and lower classes who can't avoid the taxes they pay. We shouldn't live in a society where the rich can get richer and richer and not pay taxes on their exponential growth, while the lower classes struggle to make ends meet.
ReplyDeleteIf the average American knows that the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer, why not protest. Not buy from corporate America, but the local business in our neighborhoods. Making that small of a change would reduce the amount of money the wealthy businesses are making and increase struggling local businesses.
ReplyDelete-Sara -Ruth
I appreciate that Piketty makes it clear that this measure is not the only way of measuring the inequality a country has because there are many other factors that influence it. I also was surprised by the statement he made that only 1/5 of wealth needed to be reinvested to ensure that the wealth rises in comparison to the national income.
ReplyDeletePiketty does a good job of explaining some of the reasons why inequality naturally rises and gives me confidence that we are able to understand ever-changing economics (to some degree). However, the fact that he doesn’t have solid responses to the issues shows just how dubious the act of trying to fix the system is. He mentions how redistribution practices such as inflation and expropriation have undesirable consequences, but I don’t think it is limited to these extreme actions. Any policy change for the purpose of affecting equality could cause a lot of harm whereas the potential for improvement is pretty small. At the end of the day, I don’t think economists themselves will be able to come up with anything revolutionary to fix inequality, while an entrepreneur might in the distant future.
ReplyDeleteInequality will for the rest of our existence get worse. I believe that this is inevitable because of the way people respect the resources they have. When I was a little girl, my parents did not give me things that I would not take care of. To go off on a tangent... Looking at recent incidents, I believe that the people who are looting and unpeacfully protesting are much like children who expect to be given things and not taking care of them, and then using the tragic death of a man as a platform to shed light on the problems of inequality, all the while raising inequality and destroying what "little" resources are available. this is obviously just one example, and maybe in bad taste, but how can we expect more equality when members of minority parties choose racially motivated violence and destruction over peace.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to move the conversation too far from the video posted above but I think its very easy to just characterize the Baltimore protests as random violence and it's even easier to say from our safe, secluded space of being white college students that they should just "choose peace." They've been choosing peace for years and it has been shown again and again that things are getting worse, so they react with the only recourse left to them. What else are they supposed to do when victimized by the police? They can't go to the police since they're the ones victimizing them. They can't go to the city officials.
DeleteTo relate back to the video. I don't think inequality is an inevitable force. Resources play a huge role of course but things have been changed for the better before and they will in the future too. Destruction and rioting has worked to battle inequality in the past (Boston Tea Party, Bastille Day, Gaza Freedom Flotilla) and it will in the future as well.
Sara-Ruth Gabriel
DeleteI completely agree, with @danny Paris I do not think inequality is an inevitable force. For example in Baltimore when some of the people were looting , some were looting paper towel, toilet paper, and the every day thing we overlook as a need. That alone to me shows the inequality as a force . And again it will remain one until we change inequality.
Piketty makes obvious arguments about income inequality. Income inequality will always exist, and it will continue to grow in this country in particular. The fact that taxes continue to make the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer is one of the biggest issues that take place in this country and it may continue to get worse, depending on who's in control in office.
ReplyDeleteInequality is a choice and the issue we are facing is not inequality its self but addressing it. we need to take a more assertive approach and bring it to the media.These high officials would like to make us believe things are improving and are changing but the truth of the matter is that the gap is growing exponentially.Like i stated above inequality is a choice we make its not something that's going to fix itself.
ReplyDeleteOur current system of economy allows the wealthy to get out of paying taxes, even though they're the ones who can actually afford to pay them, so I agree with Piketty that we should be introducing policies that regulate the wealthy more strictly. It allows the rich to keep on getting richer and richer, while those underneath them suffer. Politicians tell us that inequality is getting better, but the gap continues to grow. Whatever course of action we take, we need to do something before the rich end up destroying the country.
ReplyDelete- Brian Kang
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the arguments Piketty made about solutions for income inequality in the world. Taxation for the richer classes can help stabilize income rates and closes the gap between upper and lower classes. Although this may not be the probable choice of upper-class citizens, spreading the wealth through this gradual taxation will help decrease income inequality; thus, providing more financial opportunities for lower class citizens.
ReplyDeletePicketty's formula is unfortunately what is plaguing economic stagnation in America. Gains for the top don't always translate into gains for everyone else. The "trickle-down" approach to economics doesn't work.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown