Remember Piketty? Remember how inequality increases when "r > g"? That "g" stands for "growth". If you think you can stop growth AND reduce inequality at the same time, you're betting that you can reduce "r" by much MORE than you reduce "g".
-
-
Of course what you haven’t gotten to yet is that Thomas Picketty already named a straightforward prescription to rectify inequality when r>g (and surprise surprise it is completely unoriginal and not novel). Just redistribute r while g is happening.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or, maybe, the lesson people should take from Piketty is that r should accrue to the society instead of to a specific class of people? Maybe aiming for the highest g is never going to be enough.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The only growth should be had from labor, management & risk! Riskless return & illegitimate demand is a farce!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wasn't Pikkety the guy who pointed out <1% of the people get most of the money? Growth doesn't help when the market's cornered.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You keep talking like the causation is one way. The question is not one of cutting growth (straw man!) but one of how much growth will even be possible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Probably depends on the growth channel. Rising allocative efficiency seems to have raised r and g together as large firms get bigger. I think shifts in technology would decouple g from r more so.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are r and g orthogonal? If g falls, shouldn’t r?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It just means you have to execute more rich people. Guillotine technology is scalable!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would just ask to the non-investor class: what is the point of cheering on growth if you are unable to share in that growth? Growth as a goal onto itself is about as flawed as “reducing inequality” as a goal onto itself.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don’t understand why this would be that hard if you include redistribution in g
-
If nothing else, you have to redistribute much more than you otherwise would to achieve the same results. I support greater equality as a benefit in itself (esp. given where we're starting from), but it's not easy to achieve - though I do support growth in itself too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.