Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It seems the towel of overdone metaphor has become mildewed with the spores of redirected analogies. Piketty wrote a book called 'Sharks' in which he discussed the eating habits of sharks. He left out entirely their reproductive habits. Does that disqualify his description of the eating habits of sharks?I employ a team of ideology elves, who hammer at books all night when I'm not looking so I can awaken fresh as a daisy to some ready made conclusions each morning.
Just to damp us all down with the towel of overworked metaphor: would you criticise a book on the hunting methods of sharks because it doesn't discuss their reproductive methods? Criticising works for topiics not covered is a fruitless method. I'm sure Piketty doesn't discuss Hungarian realist cinema in the 1920's, how can we trust a word he says if he doesn't cover Hungarian realist cinema in the 1920's?
Quote:This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.Really, I'd have thought that the idea that class power, as expressed through state and social mechanisms to enforce and create the economic mechanisms would be presicely the communist acocunt: a counter to the fetishist idea that 'the economy' or 'the market' is a thing in itself.
Alan,what about a book that provides a deep and interesting account of global warming, showing conclusively and irrefutably that it is happening, and then goes on to advocate ineffective solutions (that it might not even think will work)?The point is that the space opens to discuss solutions, a space that might not have existed before.
I could have swonr Piketty was saying that the only solution to capitalist inequality is the forceful expropriation of capital. He only differs from us by degree. Nonetheless, many of the policy conclusions Charlie M came to we would find obnoxious, that doesn't dent our appreciation of his discoveries.
Oh, and here is a hotstile review from the Telegraph…http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10816161/Capital-in-the-Twenty-First-Century-by-Thomas-Piketty-review.htmlBy Meryn KingHe seems to take refuge in copmfrotable empiricism:
Quote:Only a detailed, and empirically based, description of differences between people will yield a theory of inequality, not a reliance on an aggregate relationship of dubious relevance.And also some of the old ideological props:
Quote:Also absent from the heart of the analysis is any recognition that the main reason for the average rate of return exceeding the growth rate by a good margin is that savers require a risk premium to compensate for the uncertain nature of the returns on investment. Adjusting for risk, average rates of return have historically been much closer to growth rates.We don't, by the way, get a risk premium on our wages, but we suffer the same risks.
Certainly class consciousness comes from experience, but experience is interpreted, and if we can use arguments, analysis and data to clarify that experience then we are aiding the growth of socialist consciousness. After years of the powers that be riding the efficient markets hypothosis, among others, as a stick with which to beat, it's good to see it broken. If the justifications for capitalism: meritocracy, efficient allocation of goods, reward for effort, can be despatched through the work of non-partisans (i.e. without express allegiances) so much the better. Additional ammunition that demonstrates not only that inquality tends to increase, but why it does so and how that is inherent in the market system are grist to our mill.
http://boingboing.net/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-t.htmlCory Doctrow gives a solid review, with extensive quotes and an interesting take, IMNSHO. I get the feeling that r > g is going to become famous. Maybe worth a banner?
Well, proof that killer robots are thoroughly moving out of the SF cupboard and into the real world, a UN report on their use:http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-47_en.pdf(Via the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. Seriously. (http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/%5Dhttp://www.stopkillerrobots.org)).
Quote:Lethal autonomous robotics (LARs) are weapon systems that, once activated, canselect and engage targets without further human intervention. They raise far-reachingconcerns about the protection of life during war and peace. This includes the question of theextent to which they can be programmed to comply with the requirements of internationalhumanitarian law and the standard s protecting life under international human rights law.Beyond this, their deployment may be unacceptable because no adequate system of legalaccountability can be devised, and because robots should not have the power of life anddeath over human beings. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States establishnational moratoria on aspects of LARs, and calls for the establishment of a high levelpanel on LARs to articulate a policy for the international community on the issue.Alan,just do what i do and look at the pictures. The main thing is he has put some pretty explosive data up for free in one convenient place. The arcane debates and formulas can be safely put to one (slight) side for more detailed reading.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2014Capital21c.pdfThis appears to be the Janet & John version.Interestingly, he defines r as being net of tax, which, from our perspective of seeing tax as a part of surplus value makes things interesting.Check out figure 3.1, note the decline in Agricultural capital.Table 21.1, the global growth of the top fractiles is a killer, it's exactly the point which we always emphasise: their wealth grows faster than ours.•Marx: with g=0,β↑∞, r→0 : revolution, war•My conclusions are less apocalyptic : with g>0, at least we have a steady-state β
/gBut he notes that with any growth, the returns of capital grow disproportionately.(That's seems to be his conclusion, I think the formulas need translating, over to you Adam).http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014TechnicalAppendix.pdfpg. 40
Piketty wrote:Iwrite in the book on p.229 that Marx gavesome examples of companies’ accounts, which can let us imagine the capital intensity he had in mind. The more elaborated statistics that Marx analyzed can be found, for most of them, in Capital (1867),Volume 1, Chapter 25, named “ The General Law of Capital Accumulation”, or more exactly in the huge appendix 10 to Chapter 25. In particular, Marx used in this appendix the statistics from the Britishcorporate income tax 1846-1866. He intended to show that capital-intensive development is characterized by an explosion of the profits and potentially an increasing concentration of the capital. He wrote for instance that the industrial profits (as well as rent land ) rose by around 40%-50% between 1853 and 1864 whereas the population only rose by 12%. However, he did not try to estimatethe level and the evolution of the wage bill, of the production and of the national income, and as a consequence he did not tackle the question of the capital-labor split or the capital/income ratio. In particular, he did not try to link the fiscal statistics with the estimates of national capital and national income, which had multiplied in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the 18th century (Petty, King) and in the 19th century (Colquhoun), and which Giffen was about to systematize in the 1860s-1880s (his work is not quoted by Marx). He also gave some information about a possible increasing concentration of profits and wealth but rather anecdotally. In fact, the data that Marx used and that give the mostinformation and can let us have a better idea of what kind of capital -intensity he had in mind are in theChapter 9 of the Volume 1 of Capital called "The Rates of Surplus-Value". In particular , Marx gives a detailed example on the accounts of a mill, "given by the owner himself", specifying the whole set of technological and financial aspects, the fixed and variable assets, the number of spindles and workers, as well as the profits and wage bill, the quantity of cotton and coal used for the production, and of course the rent. Even if Marx did not exactly put it this way, it results from the accounts that the capital-intensity of this mill is extremely high with a K/Y ratio around 10, and a capital share about 50%, or even higher (which corresponds to a profits/wages ratio, or "rate of exploitation" according to Marx’s terminology, about 100%, or even more). On the basis of other examples of mills mentioned in this chapter or in other parts of the book, we can consider that it is the kind of order of magnitude Marx had in mind for the industrial capitalism of his time.BTW, The programme can still be watched here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b048ns2s/hardtalk-thomas-piketty-economist
On Idiocy, without having a dictionary to hand, I believe the word derives from the greek Idiotes: a private person (which is why Shaw used 'Private Person' as an insult). Just checked, and ἰδιώτηςmeant private person/layman, non-specialist, uneducated, etc. so not stupid as such…
The Robot industry responds:http://www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-News/Response-to-New-York-Times-article-As-Robotics-Advances-Worries-of-Killer-Robots-Rise-by-John-Markoff-and-Claire-Cain-Miller/content_id/4853That's a useful link, because it lead me to this page:
Quote:A total of 5,938 robots valued at $338 million were ordered by companies in North America in first quarter 2014, coming in just shy of the all-time record of 6,235 robots valued at $385 million in fourth quarter 2012. Units ordered grew one percent while order dollars fell one percent when compared to first quarter 2013 figures. When sales by North American robot suppliers to companies outside North America are included, the totals are 6,491 robots valued at $372 million.[…]The automotive industry is still the largest customer for robotics in North America, representing 58% of total orders, but non-automotive industries have continued their rapid growth. The top industries in terms of growth for first quarter 2014 were food and consumer goods (+91%), plastics and rubber (+55%), and life sciences (+36%). “Robotics for use in non-automotive industries is a hot topic right now,” said Alex Shikany, Director of Market Analysis for RIA. “In total, the overall number of robots ordered for use in non-automotive industries grew 18% over first quarter 2013,” he added. […] RIA estimates that some 228,000 robots are now at use in United States factories, placing the US second only to Japan in robot use. “Many observers believe that only about 10% of the US companies that could benefit from robots have installed any so far,” Burnstein said, “A very large segment of small and medium sized companies who may have the most to gain are just now beginning to seriously investigate robotics.”
