Piketty’s data
- This topic has 319 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"Doubt everything" is only useful if you are engaged, as Marx was, in scientific or spiritual endeavour of some kind. If not, it's just a clever-sounding cover for confirmation bias.
Of course we don't agree with Piketty's reformist politics but I think it is unfair to use this as a reason for not regarding his research and conclusions as worth taking into account and quoting. After all, in the 1910s and 1920s we used to quote the findings on the distribution of wealth of Sir Leo Chiozza Money and Sir Arthur Bowley despite their politics (Chiozza Money was a Liberal MP for a time).You say, Alan, that we all know that the rich get richer but surely it is relevant to know why and also how and why the distribution of wealth and income has changed over time which is what Piketty's book is about. When the party was founded over a hundred years ago, the top 10% did own 90% of wealth ( a statistics we frequently quoted), but this fell in the period 1910-1950 to about 60%. Piketty argues that it was this period, not the pre-WWI period, that was exceptional as during it wars and inflation destroyed or devalued much capital (so g grew faster to recover and the famous gap between the r and g was less). He argues that the "natural" tendency under capitalism is not just for the rich to get richer but for the distribution of wealth to return towards pre-1910 levels. This, surely, is a powerful finding and argument to expose the futility of reformist attempts to redistribute wealth from the rich to the rest.There has, as Piketty's describes, been an apparent evolution in this direction (though not as a result of government policies) which is here to stay: the middle 40% below the top 10% and above the bottom 50% have come to acquire some wealth (mainly a house they've finished paying for but also some interest-bearing savings). This doesn't make them capitalists of course nor enable them to avoid selling their ability to work for a wages or a salary. The position of the bottom 50% has not changed.There are other interesting and relevant findings in his book. For instance, a hundred years ago the income of the top 1 percent came overwhelmingly from owning property (profit, interest, rent, dividends). Today an equal amount comes from the "salaries" that "supermanagers" pay themselves. Does this require us to widen the definition of a capitalist as someone who is simply a rentier? Are these super-salaries an alternative way of distributing surplus value to the rich?
I always thought that people will come to realise and understand the need for socialism from their own experiences of employee/employer conflict and also on a more generally from their personal perception of the profit motive versus environmental sustainability. Capitalism is full of real situations that demonstrate its inability to provide for the well-being of the majority and presents ample reasons for its overthrow.Its not about rejecting scientific argument and accepting religious preaching but self-discovery, self-education and self-emancipation. If we required Marx to prove how we are robbed at work, if we need Piketty to demonstate how inequality is built into the system, just what is the point of having our own eyes and ears for evidence? We have always rejected the legitimacy claims of the ideologues of capitalism whether they be professors or priests. I don't dismiss being provided the bullets by Marx or Piketty but if we fail to understand for ourselves who to fire at and why we are shooting, no amount of scientific peer reviewed work can substitute.I may well be charged with anti-intellectualism but all i am saying is that the academic's contribution, no matter how worthy and valuable, is not essential but merely additional or complementary to the consciousness we gain from our interaction with this social system and our fellows within our communities. Alas, this awareness still hasn't grown or spread sufficiently in strength to overcome capitalism. I hoped Piketty removed one more veil hiding reality but then he goes and adds another veil of his own. C'est la vie as Piketty might say in his native tongue
"Today an equal amount comes from the "salaries" that "supermanagers" pay themselves."And i thought that the most important part of their remuneration was the various and regular share options they were provided as part of their contract and could cash in if they so desired when the share price was right, Adam, and if it is only salary , just where do they place it…under the bed…or in stocks and shares and perhaps a trust or few. Again not a great discovery and one that has been highlighted previously. But i do note the " " around salary. During the 60s/70s the Scottish radical theatre group called themselves 7-84 so i wonder where they got that figure from. But i am i grant being rather ungenerous to Piketty … simply because as i say it is the class that will remove capitalism not the intellectual and the most …the MOST. ..important question is what will motivate it to act.
stuartw2112 wrote:I agree with SocialistPunk that religious preaching may have a more positive effect on the ignorant unwashed than scientific argument. It's a departure from Marx's own way of doing things, but maybe that's a good thing.I think Piketty ignored the Forbes question because he didn't regard it as serious. He deals with "churn", people moving into and out of the rich, in his book, though people who haven't read it no doubt consider it a killer point.I hope you are being a bit naughty on purpose there Stuart, 'cos I don't think that "preaching" to the "ignorant unwashed" gets the case for socialism one bit closer to fruition. Most people are capable of understanding the case for socialism, it isn't that difficult a concept, but it does get tied up in knots when using so called "scientific argument." Like I said, it's great for a sophisticated, liberal, middle class dinner party, (with people who have no interest in socialist revolution) but that isn't where the revolution will kick off.I think Alan and I are on the same wavelength here, that socialism will only come about once enough people change their mindset, consciousness, or whatever term ya fancy. No amount of Marx or Piketty will do that for most people. If the "scientific argument" is so powerful, why not try it on the guy from the Socialist Center.I'm not saying complex anlaysis doesn't have its place, but it should be given priority according to its effectiveness.I accept your point about Piketty ignoring the question, as he knows the rich list is not static year on year, so the fact that one year sees a lot of self made capitalists up there doesn't affect the overall picture.
The various versions of our old Questions of the Day pamphlet used to have a notice at the back saying read the Socialist Standard
Quote:For the socialist viewpoint on current affairs backed by incontrovertible facts and logical argument.We seem to be re-running the old "is socialism a moral as well as a scientific case" discussion. It would be an own goal if the "moralists" denied any place for facts and logical arguments just as much as if the "scientists" ruled out indignation at what capitalism does to people as part of the socialist case.OK. Piketty's book is some 600 pages long but this has never put socialists off recommending a book. After all, Thorold Rogers Six Centuries of Work and Wages which the early party used to recommend and EP Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class which we still recommend are just as long. Piketty's book is not full of algebraic formula as are many modern academic books on economics (less so than Marx's Capital in fact) and is a relatively easy read as unlike most French academics he writes clearly, simply and unpretentiously.
Put it this way – are facts relevant to your concerns or not? In my experience, ordinary working class people at the sharp end of austerity policies are far more interested in the facts than middle-class dinner parties are. If the facts are relevant to your concerns, then go to Piketty and you will come away well armed.As Adam said, it's not actually so much a book of theoretical speculation, scientific or otherwise, but rather a marshalling of the facts. The reason it's so long is because Piketty very carefully explains what the facts are, how accurate a reflection of reality the numbers are, and what we can reasonably deduce from them. This makes it far more powerful than a casual, moral denunciation. And as Adam, Kunkel, Paul Mason and others have pointed out, his arguments support a socialist conclusion rather more strongly than they do his own.If on the other hand the facts are not your concern, that's fair enough but it puzzles me why you've come into a thread called "Piketty's data" to tell us so!
I do love to rattle cages.Did i say i do not appreciate facts? I often quote Burns that facts are chiels that dinnae ding. I have several times agreed that Piketty (and Marx…) provided a more grounded critique for us to use as tools in our case for socialism. But these are not decisive in the class struggle. Just where have i said he is wrong in what he wrote. What i have been saying is that in many regards it is all superfluous to the real issue at hand. It is not the lack of facts or statistical proof that hinder the progress of socialism. It is the lack of a consciousness against the strength of our opposing ideology which has no need to rely on facts and has never done, despite all those philosophical/intellectual justifications of the system that have been produced by the academic apologists of capitalism in the last century or so. I already stated that formulation r>g is a weaker than the 1% v 99% despite the lack of accuracy on the figure as it reinforces peoples own experience without the requirement of translation. Piketty has given us the proof that we can say the rich get richer and money makes money and now we can say "We told you so and said so all along" But what makes you believe that now coming from Piketty will have more validity than previously a soap-box orator? I am minded that no matter how scientific we can be such as exposing racism or whatever, workers have to learn for themselves and from one another. (YMS did make a earlier point that Marx wrote as a part of our class ..the IWMA) You accuse me of confirmation bias…and then challenge my presence on a thread because all i am doing is questioning why Piketty stops well short of the conclusion for the abolition of capitalism as a system (which Adam and those well respected authorities you cite seems to say the findings lean towards))…I am emphasising that our core questions that determines our political actions and approach are in no way answered in this book. It is much an ado about nothing. Worse still, the book offers credibility to all the tax reformers of the world for Robin Hood/Tobin tax systems, that inequality can be reduced by government action at a global level.Yet Piketty himself doubts it could ever succeed, but lets give the proles something they might believe is achievable. This is not very far away from a Trotskyist transitional demand policy. Too harsh a criticism? Maybe it is.But once again, i have to re-iterate my own conclusion …the philosophers have interpreted the world (and Piketty joins that well revered club), BUT the point is to change it. It takes a mass movement of our class to do this and it has not been waiting all this time for some book to give it reason and cause to change it. The big question which i keep asking myself is why it has not acted except only in self-defence. Can Piketty give more confidence to the working class, yes, a bit …but i doubt it will change things that much.r > g needs a movement behind it, 1% v 99% had the beginnings of that movement but has dissipated…Just how can we re-build that movement and make it better? All answers on a postcard, please (or inscribed upon your banners)
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya010714.htmAnother review of the book by Gideon Polya to add to everybody's reading list.Inscribe upon your banner, YMS, "First Law of Capitalism is a = r x ß where a is the share in national income from capital, r is the average annual return on capital and ß is the capital to income ratio. Piketty's Second Law of Capitalism is ß = s/g (or rather ß asymptotes to s/g in the longterm) where ß is the capital to income ratio, s is the savings rate and g is the rate of growth of the economy " As i said, what people will take away from this book is not the need for socialist revolution but "his must-read book makes a strong case that expanding wealth inequity must be controlled for economic sustainability and democracy reasons and proposes an annual global wealth tax … and support an effective annual wealth tax for democracy and economic justice…"
stuart2112 wrote:If on the other hand the facts are not your concern, that's fair enough but it puzzles me why you've come into a thread called "Piketty's data" to tell us so!I've come to this thread to tell anyone who'll listen that the scientific method is 'theory and practice'.'Piketty's data' flows from 'Picketty's theory', and not the other way round.Our Communist theories contain other elements, that Piketty doesn't employ, to uncover 'facts', and so his conclusions will be different to ours, not because of 'moral denunciation', but because 'facts' are like fish in the sea (to follow Carr's famous analogy). Piketty and you, compared to me, employ different tackle and methods, and fish in different waters, and so get very different 'fish/facts'.
alajjohnstone wrote:Did i say i do not appreciate facts? I often quote Burns that facts are chiels that dinnae ding. I have several times agreed that Piketty (and Marx…) provided a more grounded critique for us to use as tools in our case for socialism.'Theory' is not 'grounded' in 'facts'.'Facts' are 'grounded' in 'theory'.'Grounded Theory' is a conservative method, ajj.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theoryMarx provides us with a different theory to Piketty. Our 'tools' flow from our critical ideas, not from 'facts', and especially not from Piketty's 'facts'.The conclusion from Piketty's book will be reformist, because Piketty selects his 'facts' to fit his reformist theory. We're kidding ourselves if we think that the world will draw revolutionary conclusions from this book.
Where have you been? A few weeks ago i posted this link particularly for yourself, LBird.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/economics-not-scienceI guess you agree that confirmation bias that Stuart threw at me is the only logical outcome…that we seek facts that fit into your own already existing particular view. But perhaps i am mistaken on that too.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Where have you been? A few weeks ago i posted this link particularly for yourself, LBird.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/economics-not-scienceI guess you agree that confirmation bias that Stuart threw at me is the only logical outcome…that we seek facts that fit into your own already existing particular view. But perhaps i am mistaken on that too.Sorry Alan, I missed it, because it was posted on the second day of our holiday in Greece. Sun, beer, football and other real humans for once taking priority over the internet and my ghostly comrades.Of course, the key point is that, not only is 'economics not science', but that 'science is not science', in the sense of the mythical 'science' of 'producing objective truth about nature'.In fact, 'science' is just like 'economics'!The sooner we all expose our own ideological 'confirmation bias', including Stuart's and Piketty's, the better for all of our understandings.I'm a Communist, and that 'fact' colours my approach to both science and society. It can't be otherwise, because we're all humans attempting to understand 'economics' and 'physics'.Neither physical nor economic 'facts' present themselves to us, unbidden. We have to select, and our selection parameters are determined by our ideology; as Einstein said, 'the theory determines what we can observe'.
Alan, confirmation bias isn't a criticism or a moral failing – we all suffer from it even if we're aware of what it is. All you have to do to is, say, read some Hayek. You put your finger on something when you speak of my reverence for books. It's precisely why your irreverence and that of other party members can sometimes lash me into such anger. And I agree that your brand of cynical scepticism has a role – to make us rightly sceptical of the claims of authority. But there are two kinds of authority – that which is usurped, and that which is earned. Your attitude helps take down the former but also poisons the latter, like students giggling and messing about in a lecture they don't understand. There comes a time when we must put aside childish things.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.