Incredible how he walks through the implications of Capital. And then, when he puts everything together pointing to the political necessity of revolution to stave off complete economic and civilisation collapse, he can’t imagine the first and the second is bad, so he makes up some liberal story that won’t solve it and can’t happen because of what he’s just said, but sounds nice and like it’s not too much work.
I mean “prove” in the common usage, not as in mathematical proof.
If Piketty read Marx he wouldn’t be astounded to find that indeed r > g, wealth accumulates and one class enriches itself at the expense of the rest.
If Piketty read Marx he would not be lost about interpreting his own data, suggesting a wealth tax as if that would reconcile the contradictory nature by which capitalist wealth is produced in the first place.
Piketty proved empirically what Marx proved theoretically 150 years ago.
What zero theory does to a mf.
Incredible how he walks through the implications of Capital. And then, when he puts everything together pointing to the political necessity of revolution to stave off complete economic and civilisation collapse, he can’t imagine the first and the second is bad, so he makes up some liberal story that won’t solve it and can’t happen because of what he’s just said, but sounds nice and like it’s not too much work.
You can’t prove human behavior theoretically, you can make predictions, and you can measure reality to see if it matches. Both are critical.
I mean “prove” in the common usage, not as in mathematical proof.
If Piketty read Marx he wouldn’t be astounded to find that indeed r > g, wealth accumulates and one class enriches itself at the expense of the rest.
If Piketty read Marx he would not be lost about interpreting his own data, suggesting a wealth tax as if that would reconcile the contradictory nature by which capitalist wealth is produced in the first place.