The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Taleb: ... one can argue that the system should ensure downward mobility, something much more important than upward one. The statist French system has no downward mobility for the elite. In natural settings, the rich are more fragile than the middle class and we need the system to maintain it ... Spitznagel: ... what's hidden beneath all the aggregate income-inequality data is much cross-sectional downward mobility, in that most people in the right tail of income spend very little time there. The transience of success is assured by natural entrepreneurial capitalism, and is precisely what works about it: unseating the top, driving out the lucky and unworthy. Without this dynamic, capitalism doesn't work. It isn't even capitalism, but rather oligarchic central planning. Yet modern government chips away at this dynamic in so many ways, most significantly by providing floors and safety nets to crony bankers and other financial punters. What irony that the same people who today loudly endorse a global wealth tax to rein in inequality were also the very ones saying guys like us were nuts for opposing the bailouts back in 2008!
Spitznagel: ... what's hidden beneath all the aggregate income-inequality data is much cross-sectional downward mobility, in that most people in the right tail of income spend very little time there. The transience of success is assured by natural entrepreneurial capitalism, and is precisely what works about it: unseating the top, driving out the lucky and unworthy. Without this dynamic, capitalism doesn't work. It isn't even capitalism, but rather oligarchic central planning. Yet modern government chips away at this dynamic in so many ways, most significantly by providing floors and safety nets to crony bankers and other financial punters. What irony that the same people who today loudly endorse a global wealth tax to rein in inequality were also the very ones saying guys like us were nuts for opposing the bailouts back in 2008!
Piketty data shows that the post-WWII Keynesian decades were most transient for the top - while the natural r>g tendency bites towards greater inequality.
... we pursue a small present good which will be followed by a great evil to come, rather than a great good to come at the risk of a small present evil. The latter is what I call roundaboutness, which is central to strategic decision making, especially investing. It is about counter-intuitively heading right in order to better go left, or taking small losses now -- and willingly looking like an idiot -- to build a strategic advantage for later. [...] We have roundaboutness to thank for civilization itself ...
[...] We have roundaboutness to thank for civilization itself ...
This is then related to Taleb's "skin in the game" idea. It seems to me, currently capital owners and top CEOs are entitled to maximum anti-roundabout profits with minimum exposure of their skin to the game. You need a government for that indeed - but not "people's government for the people".
Then they two address Piketty directly - but that is not worth my time.
I would just say that I'm not sure r>g is "natural". I guess it's mostly enforced thanks to the power of money -which goes some way towards explaining why it was never less true than during the after WW2 period. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Or strong unions, one might add. But in general you are right, of course -however, public awareness is clearly what Piketty was trying to get. I was just pointing it out because I feel that we should not let the meme that this is just in the nature of things stay unchallenged. Also, as I mentioned, I believe that it is the difference between r and productivity growth that matters, not with total growth (although Piketty does compare to total growth), when discussing inequalities.
As an aside, as Krugman mentioned today, the demographic transition, towards a drop in the working-age population, could have a strong impact on the discrepancy between r and g. So it may have been somewhat natural because we were always in growing times, and now the reverse become natural because there may be an unreversible decline in numbers. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 25 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Oui - Jun 211 comments
by Oui - Jun 17 comments
by Oui - May 3130 comments
by Oui - May 3025 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2733 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 913 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2652 comments
by Oui - Apr 890 comments
by Oui - Mar 19144 comments