Zee qualite of sound c'est magnifique! Eet eez merely eez outrageous accent!

Solow is great-- the man is nearly 90 and still going strong!

Indeed that is great attainment on the subject God Bless you..

In 1999, the 447 richest people's net worth was equal to 50% of the entire planet's annual income. In 2013 it has come down to the 67 richest. Noblesse oblige no longer applies in modern society, the belief that with tremendous wealth comes social responsibility. As this is no longer the case, we are now committing to a future of insanity unless we move in a new, healthy direction. "If nothing can be more efficient, then how do you explain poverty, environmental disruptions, pollution, climate change, criminality, waste production, class division, famine, energy crisis, wars and so on? What I see is an incredible inefficient waste machine, profoundly unsustainable, and completely disconnected from any planetary life support system. Employment, growth, GDP and cyclical consumption are needed to sustain this crazy economy, at the root of all the bad consequences we are facing." Capitalism, it would appear, in its increasing obstruction of the political process in addition to all of the above, has become the #1 global threat socially and planetarily.

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

Given that capitalism has been solely and directly responsible for the massive improvement in compensation, working conditions and prosperity, particularly for the poor and middle classes over the last three centuries (this is a little thing called "recorded history" - you should consider it some time), perhaps undisguised envy is not the solution. Given that poverty is overwhelmingly concentrated where capitalism has been least embraced (and receding fastest when it is embraced, such as now in China and India); that capitalism has made it possible to devote ever more resources to protecting the environment; that violence has diminished in relation to population size (see Pinker's work); and that employment growth, GDP and consumption (which demonstrably need not be cyclical) are fostered by capitalism and are demonstrably curtailed by government intervention (thanks Obama), there's a reason that Piketty (and the EPI and Mishel and Schmitt, formerly of the EPI) are laughingstocks in the profession.

@tbayley6

10 жыл бұрын

FletchforFreedom I don't think anyone is really saying capitalism is the problem. (Well, they might be saying it, but I think they're confusing it with crony capitalism.) Yes, it has delivered great advantages - the reason that is being overlooked is that the vast majority of people in the US and UK are actually getting poorer. What seems to upset them is the fact that the rich are getting massively richer at the same time - I don't see how you can call that 'envy' exactly? Combine that fact with ample evidence of cronyism between government and corporations and they seem to feel they're being had. So I think we have to come up with something more than the usual 'lazy' and 'envious' strawmen.

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

Tom Bayley Actually, it is abundantly clear from the person to whom I was responding that capitalism is EXATLY who she was blaming: "Capitalism, it would appear, in its increasing obstruction of the political process in addition to all of the above, has become the #1 global threat socially and planetarily." And please don;t use the term "crony capitalism". As popular as it is, it's a glaring oxymoron. The correct term is simply socialism, or, even more correctly, state socialism. That the "vast majority of people in the US are actually getting poorer" is debatable. It depends entirely on your time frame. The vast majority of people in both countries are wealthier than they were a decade ago (and vastly more than three decades ago ... and so on...). That, in the economic short term, a recession significantly prolonged by government intervention HAS, in fact, made the vast majority poorer is true. But it won't last. FDR proved that it's very difficult to completely kill entrepreneurship. That government spending tends to help the wealthy (specifically the investment class) because that's where nearly all that so-called "stimulus" money ends up is part of the great lie that governments tell in order to convince the ignorant that it would be disastrous to cut spending and would throw people out on the street even though these are the very policies impoverishing people.

@tbayley6

10 жыл бұрын

FletchforFreedom Well, I got the distinct impression that it's the cronyism that the poster is really objecting to. I'm getting sick of the silly arguments that always seem to boil down to a mistaken attachment to some *words*. Words need to be clarified, yes, but if someone appears to have a genuine concern then for goodness sake give it some space. You don't destroy concerns by stomping on them - you just build resistance that way. Pinning cronyism on either capitalism or socialism is a mistake, because the way it continues (whether by design or not) is by dividing and distracting those who might stop it. The way to defeat it is to throw away our divisive certainties, stop assuming each other to be idiots for having confused words and notions, and try to help each other express the real underlying concerns. Compassion and understanding are so rare in the public debate - wouldn't it be nice if there was some? Whether or not the 99% are actually better off now seems to be a moot point. The destruction of the middle class, income growth canceled by indebtedness, etc. I guess it depends on your terms of reference. In contrast, it seems that in this rather severe recession the wealthy have become much better off.

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

Tom Bayley I couldn’t possibly disagree more. I cannot see how any objective reading of the post can be read as anything but a general attack on capitalism as a whole and, more to the point, we do not live in a nutjob Noam Chomsky fantasy world where you can make words mean whatever you want. Words MEAN things. The context matters and meanings change over time (hence the use of the term “libertarian” in the US to describe a concept classically referred to as “liberal” given the complete change in that word’s usage, but, at any given time, words have specific uses that cannot be merely abandoned. I have made no attempt to “destroy concerns”. As I made clear in my previous response, the concern is quite real but the nature of the post suggested a “solution” that merely exacerbates the problem (which is precisely what the powers that be want). Nor was it the confusion of words that demonstrated a failure in thinking (note that I have not been similarly dismissive of your use of the term but am merely providing the definitions as they apply), but rather the general attack on capitalism which is exactly what is used to justify ever more interventions which are the cause rather than a solution to the problem. Because words mean things, it is not a mistake to “pin” cronyism to socialism. By definition, cronyism as part of capitalism is objectively impossible. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “distracting or dividing” except inasmuch as it is obfuscated by those engaging in it (often successfully as demonstrated by the poster to whom I was responding who clearly has been distracted). Cronyism is neither more nor less than state granted favoritism. But capitalism, by definition and as a matter of practicality, is neither more nor less than the free market which precludes state economic activity (which is another way of saying socialism, or, if you prefer, state socialism). As for compassion, that is precisely why I am engaged in such discourse. More than anything else, I want to live in a world where literally everyone is made better off. But, more than that, I feel it is a moral obligation to consider not merely intentions but outcomes when considering policies ostensibly designed to help people. This is why I am such a strong advocate of capitalism (free markets) and such a staunch opponent of the welfare state, minimum wage laws, closed shop laws, etc. that have demonstrably harmed rather than helped the poor and middle class. Whether or not the 99% is better off in the long run may be moot to you, but, that, as a direct result of capitalism, such is the case is not even debatable. It’s established fact. That with the massive interventions of government over the last several years, many, including most of the wealthy, have experienced income drops is certainly true but bolsters my point. That the wealthy are recovering faster is true (and inevitable as return on capital must precede the return on jobs capital creates) but, the fact is that the steepest drop in incomes between 2006 and 2010 was experienced not by the bottom 20% or the middle class but by the top 5% (Source: US Census Bureau). And no such “destruction” of the middle class has taken place (www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/03/29-middle-class-myth-haskins - FYI: there's a response from union-funded EPI hack Jared Bernstein on Huffington Post that demonstrates little more than he should be forced to take his Econ degree back to the gumball machine he got it from if you're interested). Also, contrary to the oft-repeated nonsense dumped on the unwitting and uneducated Occupy crowd, real total compensation has risen steadily and substantially in every decade since statistics have been kept and likely will again once the economy recovers (that is, assuming wrong-headed interventions such as the current administration has been engaging in don’t continue to prolong real recovery). To me, the only frame of reference that matters is informed and factually accurate - which is what I’ve provided.

i read and heard a couple economists and others that if we just stopped wasting food and distributing it relatively equally, everyone on earth would be obese. if population explosion is part of the problem, then start with the top 0.5% in wealth.

OMG the audio, wth?

i like economists like Richard Wolff who gives us the "dismal science" in every day language(not talking about his accent) and humor. but i just started listening maybe it gets better.

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

Since a) the "everyone would be obese" comment is utter nonsense,b) wealth redistribution does not result in economic stability (quite the opposite, it's the chief cause of economic instability) and c) Richard Wolff is a Marxist (and therefor undeserving of the title "economist") which is why he's justly a laughingstock among actual economists, perhaps you'd be better off listening to competent economists.

The audio stinks. The left channel is nearly mute, the S/N ratio is annoyingly low, and the audio goes dead intermittently. Whaddya want from a non-profit? There's probably no money left for a good recording after Piketty's first-class tickets from Paris.

@doneyhon4227

9 жыл бұрын

Peter Huggie He probably never accept a first-class ticket. I'm french. I know him since 10 years. He is a very humble man with a solid idea of what is normal and what is too much...

Piketty's call for more growth leads to a faster destruction of the environment (the green problem) so he thinks that's less important than reducing class warfare (the red problem). His interesting science, therefore, includes his view about values.

Truly terrible audio... this has to improved. The 1% surely did not fund the creation of this video.

Argh, get out of my right ear

Nothing like a guy whose "data" doesn't survive the slightest actual scrutiny pontificating for an organization that lost any vestige of credibility years ago...

@canteluna

10 жыл бұрын

FletchforFreedumb Nothing like a libertardian whose "data" is-- well -- absent. He hasn't actually presented any, but he does make a nice little ad hominem and that's got to count for something, right? And speaking of the credibility of libertardians --- wait, did I just use "credibility" and "libertardian" in the same sentence?

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

canteluna If you tried something that would never occur to you - looking into the facts before opining - you wouldn't be such a laughingstock on KZread. As it happens, I have not only read the appropriate information, I have read Piketty's thesis (and understand it). His main premise is that wealth is constantly being concentrated in the hands of wealthy. Set aside the graphical representation that shows this is inconsistent with long term reality (wealth concentration peaked in 1910 in the US according to his own data), his main point rests on a graph showing the return on capital exceeds economic growth. But that graph shows that between 1910 and the present (the only period where reliable data is available) the exact opposite is the case. He "estimates" that it will rise again after 2012 (when the last data point was) and that there was a huge 4.5% return on capital from year 0 to 1800. Of course, if that were the case and the entire human race had the equivalent of a single penny in year zero, the world economy would have grown to a size a full quintillion times the size it is today ... by 1800. I just find it ironic that he's presenting his (debunked) thesis to an organization that has been debunked so frequently (presenting the Card & Krueger study as credible; getting John Kerry in hot water with his outsourcing comment, vastly overstating the impact of NAFTA and alumnus John Schmitt's claims) that no one with a brain takes them at all seriously. Of course, since the sum total of your economics knowledge amounts to calling actual research you don't like "libertardian", no one with any grasp of reality will ever take you seriously anyway.

@canteluna

10 жыл бұрын

Laughable sophistry. Your "analysis" of Pickety is priceless -- by that I mean worthless. Just another example of anything that contradicts the dogma doesn't penetrate the bubble. If anyone's not taken seriously, it's libertardians. If it weren't for the Kochs and a few other wealthy patrons propping up you clowns, funding your think tanks and propaganda outlets, you'd be just another religious cult. But keep pumping out the piss, boys, the best way to debunk libertardians is to let them talk. Hey, whatever happened to your fantasy island that Peter Thiel was going to buy you? Or why not get the Kochs and Newt Gingrich to fund a moon colony for you? You're just too perfect for this world. HAhahahahahaha!

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

canteluna In other words, you’re just a mindless (brainless) troll incapable of rising above ad hominem attacks and outright falsehoods. You haven’t (in any of the threads you’ve followed me to) presented so much as a single fact. Not one. You have yet to respond to any of the substantive points that I’ve made because you can’t. In this case, by all means, if my argument is sophistry, then you can simply point out where my analysis is false, but, of course, you never read the work, can’t comprehend my analysis, have no understanding of the issues under discussion so simply stick your fingers in your ears and hum “it’s a libertard: it’s a libertard: it’s a libertard” as if it makes anyone but you look like a complete imbecile. Obviously, looks are not always deceiving. It’s a wonder you can pull those fingers back out again against the vacuum. *I* am not the source of the assertion that wealth concentration in the US peaked in 1910; PIKETTY is. And his thesis is based on the premise that the return on capital has historically exceeded economic growth (the source, he says of wealth concentration). That such is not the case for the entire period (the last century) during which reliable data is available is conceded by … Piketty, himself, whose graph shows exactly that. In order for his thesis (and graph) to hold up, the return on capital from the year 0 to the year 1800 would need to be 4.5%. This, again, is no claim of mine; it is expressly stated by Piketty himself. That figure is nonsensical as anyone (with a brain and a computer) can easily see. Simply enter .01 (a penny for the entire wealth of humankind) in cell A1 of an Excel spreadsheet. In the cell below type in “=A1*1.045” (that penny plus the 4.5% return for the next year). Now copy that formula down to row 1801 for a full 1800 years of that 4.5% return. The result you get is $256.6 nonillion (a nonillion is 1 followed by 30 zeroes) as of 1800! Yet, after a few centuries of the most phenomenal economic growth the world has ever seen, the entire wealth of the planet today (according to Credit Suisse) comes to about $261 trillion. According to Piketty, subject to a little bit of rounding, the wealth of the planet in 1800 had already reached a quintillion (1 followed by 18 zeroes) times what it is today. By all means regale us with your explanation of how using Piketty’s expressly provided figures and basic math is “sophistry”. [NOTE: for any others stopping by, apologies for the length; I had to explain at a level an addled 4-year-old might understand.] Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for an intelligent answer from you. Everyone who’s tried that has perished and I’m not about to accommodate your imbecility in that manner.

@canteluna

10 жыл бұрын

I've presented lots of facts. That you're incapable of comprehending anything outside your bubble is not my problem. I'll look into what you claim is Pikkety's error. In the meantime, why don't you present the corporate shill perspective of what's wrong with his thesis. That you're envious of Pikkety and Robert Reich because they're actually taken seriously in the "real world" and you're just one more youtube ranting ass clown is obvious and something you need to work out with a psychotherapist.