Piketty’s data

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

For me, reading bourgeois economists like Piketty is a bit like reading a 700 page account by a child about how the tooth-fairy puts a tanner under the pillow. It's full of 'interesting' detail like the wingspan of the fairy, how the pillow is filled with 'magic-down', so that the pillow floats up holding the head of the sleeper whilst the tooth-fairy deposits the 6d…

That analogy doesn't hold, though, does it, by your own account.  The selectivity of evidence presupposes that there is phenomenal evidence to select from.  To return to my natural history theme, it's a bit like those nature documentaries.  When it's about seals, it's about how they have to raise their pups, catch fish, and avoid being irritated to death by killer whales.  If the doc was about killer whales, it would be how they have to drown seals to feed their young.  So, the only point of contention is the extent to which an author:Is aware of their premises/presuppositionsArticulates their premises/presuppositionsConceals or attempts to concceal their premises/presuppositionsIf Piketty does lay out his prmises/presuppositions and general social/ideological deixis then that is not a point of criticism, just a necessary observation, shirley.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

That analogy doesn't hold, though, does it, by your own account. The selectivity of evidence presupposes that there is phenomenal evidence to select from.

This is all very difficult for you, isn't it, YMS?What do you think 'fish' represent in Carr's brilliant analogy?'Fish' don't have their origin in a Fisherman's head, do they?

YMS wrote:

To return to my natural history theme…

You actually mean:

YMSs ideology wrote:

To get away from philosophy of science, of which I know nothing, and get back to 'the real world' beloved of conservative thinkers…

And so,

YMS wrote:

So, the only point of contention is the extent to which an author:Is aware of their premises/presuppositionsArticulates their premises/presuppositionsConceals or attempts to concceal their premises/presuppositions

No, this is not about 'individuals', YMS.It's about how societies (especially classes) brainwash 'authors' into being aware of premises/presuppositions which make sense to that society.The bourgeoisie CAN'T be 'aware' of what we're aware, because they are not Communists, whereas we are Communists.In short, it's about the politics of the 'author'. The author is a glove-puppet for their socially-implanted ideology.Your 'point of contention' is like insisting we ask Sooty if he's aware of Mr. Corbett's 'premises/presuppositions'.Whatever 'Sooty' says, we know it's not Sooty's opinions, which we can change by talking to Sooty.To make it clear, for 'Sooty', read 'Piketty'. The bourgeoisie has got its hand up Piketty's arse, comrade. He'll 'fish' for the 'fish' that his training, tackle, bait and choice of river determine. The 'fish' he'll get won't be the same as us, because we're using different training, tackle, bait and a different river.And which sauce will the 'objective, raw, fish' be served with? To 'taste', another social factor…

[LBird]

Once more, for those unfamiliar with Carr's famous quote:

E. H. Carr, in What is History?, wrote:

"Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. …. The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_History%3FThis all applies to science, too. This is the proper scientific method.Hence, "Study Piketty", not just his book of 'economic facts'.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, to the extent all utterances are dialogically layered with intersecting significations no ideology is total but always contingent, mediated and contested.  The perlocutionary forces of assertives are other focussed, necesarilly so, thus it is otiose to analsyse the deixis of a given utterance rather than it's dialogical position in the language game.It really is that simple.

[Young Master Smeet]

Or, put another way: if we know the rod, know the river and the time we can accept the fish for our own porpoises.  We don't condemn for such choises, that would be foolish, because those choices mean something to us too.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Or, put another way: if we know the rod, know the river and the time we can accept the fish for our own porpoises.  We don't condemn for such choises, that would be foolish, because those choices mean something to us too.

But if the 'fish' is used for the 'porpoises' of making 'glue', what use it then for our purposes of producing a fish & chip supper?We can 'condemn such choices' and waste, unless you're happy to be given a 'bostik butty' for supper.We can't separate out 'facts' or 'raw data' from the purposes for which it was 'collected', YMS. By accident, some 'data' might be useful or relevant, but we would have to determine that by placing the 'data' within our contexts, if that is possible.It's a serious methodological error to think that 'data' is ever 'raw'. Choice is inescapable.We must examine the 'chooser' and their 'choices', and what 'concoction' is produced from the combination and structuring of those 'choices'.For me, Piketty's 'concoction' is a rancid 'fish' stew of uncertain status and origin. May contain nuts. Or porpoise penis.I think I prefer Marx's culinary skills and tastes.

[alanjjohnstone]

Another review i got reading. Bit too technical, all that elasticity stuff for me, and Cambridge V Cambridge…i thought that was one of LBirds prizefights but this line made me think. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/05/pikettys-fair-weather-friends/

"But so what? Suppose it all comes true: growth slows, the r – g gap widens, and both wealth inequality and inheritance balloon. What real difference would that make in a world already swimming in inequality?"[/quote]

[Young Master Smeet]

That's a different keettle of fish entirely: we're discussing not what the catch is, but knowing how it was caught and what it is: we're not discussing the piece of cod that passeth all human understanding.  It could turn out the bouregois glue is highly flammable, and we might be able to hurl molotov porpoises back at them…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…knowing…what it is…

That's the point that you're missing entirely, YMS.Humans 'knowing what something is' is a lot more problematic than your appear to realise.What Piketty 'knows' and what we 'know' of the apparently same 'it' is the problem.The 'it' doesn't tell us 'what it is'.The belief that the 'it' tells humans 'what it is' is an ideological belief, rooted in 19th century positivistic science, and, for Communists, rooted in Engels' misunderstandings of Marx.To 'know' an 'it', the 'it' must be defined first, by humans.Fish do not have 'fish' written upon their sides…

[alanjjohnstone]

 

It could turn out the bouregois glue is highly flammable, and we might be able to hurl molotov porpoises back at them…[/quote]Piketty has provided the actual historic data to say there is inequality built into capitalism – that we already knew (and those who deny it are still denying it) and that this disparity will widen in the future, something many already suspected, i would appreciate some outlines on specific ways that Piketty can be further used as a tool in our propaganda to abolish capitalism rather than reduce extreme inequality.Will we be publishing a pamphlet on the subject, a series of articles, public meetings? I have no problem with the promising situation that economic theory is once again being discussed in the more popular mediums. There has been various publicity events in the past couple of yers since the recession hit that has created the space for further discourse. Here's hoping Piketty has started debate in the pubs and clubs and i am proved wrong. But if it has, what is planned for our own contribution to ensure the correct conclusions are being drawn from Piketty? What is the content of those molotovs? Cod liver oil?

[ALB]

I can think of various things we could do:1. Publish an article length review in the Socialist Standard2. Maybe also a shorter piece on where he gets Marx wrong.3. A meeting entitled "Have You Read Piketty?"4. Use his figures to update Chapter 7 of our The Market System Must Go! Why Reformism Doesn't Work pamphlet:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/market-system-must-go

[Young Master Smeet]

Or, for the time short, you can read the unofficial Executive SummaryAnyway, I don't know about the rest of you, but I tend to find when people accuse others in debate that their opponent is missing the point, that that is poor argumentation.  The default assumption must be that they aren't explaining themselves clearly enough (especially when they go on to explain to their opponent who is "missing the point" a point they have made themselves three posts ago). 

[alanjjohnstone]

I like the idea of 1 and 2. But perhaps go further with a special issue…Include the underconsumptionist faulty public spending theories too. As you say, why should some of those guys be fish that got away …Maybe call it "Inequality Beyond the Economists!" A meeting entitles "Have You Read Piketty?" …hmm???..Not going to get much of an audience, are we?"Why You Should Read Piketty" is more apt for yourself and a rhetorical "Why Should You Read Piketty?" for us doubters. A friendly debate with plenty of good humour…Your good self Versus LBirdI think we could easily update the online version. Perhaps a sort of errata slip coud be inserted into our remaining hard-copy stock.

[ALB]

Incidentally, one illusion Piketty does not share is to imagine that banks can create credit by the stroke of a pen. In fact he takes a similar position to ours:

Quote:

What in fact do central banks do? For present purposes, it is important to realize that central banks do not create wealth as such; they redistribute it. More precisely, when the Fed or the ECB decides to create a billion additional dollars or euros, US or European capital is not augmented by that amount. In fact, national capital does not change by a single dollar or euro, because the operations in which central banks engage are always loans. They therefore result in the creation of financial assets and liabilities, which, at the moment they are created, exactly balance each other. For example, the Fed might lend $1 billion to Lehman Brothers or General Motors (or the US government) and these entities contract an equivalent debt. The net wealth of the Fed and Lehman Brothers (or General Motors) does not change at all, nor, a fortiori, does that of the United States or the planet. Indeed, it would be astonishing if central banks could simply by the stroke of a pen increase the capital of their nation or the world.(p. 550)

 

[alanjjohnstone]

Firt the book now we have The Spirit Level – The Moviehttp://thespiritleveldocumentary.com/Any ideas from anybody for making a short movie of Piketty's book that may help promote the party case? 

[Author]

Posts