There are still people on Veeky Forums who haven’t read the most important book of this century

btw on bank transactions i support it, just read panama papers and there are real problems with shell companies as tax havens

*total estate tax

This looks interesting. I'm scared by the graduate-level label.

Would this be harder to understand than Piketty's Capital, George's Progress and Poverty or Keynes' General Theory? I'm not an economist and I've only had a small business - I'm just curious and socially concerned. Is this approachable by an outsider?

Also, thoughts on Kalecki? He seems to be a socialist Keynes, or reverse Keynes, with limited trust in central planning instead of limited trust in free markets.

Haven't read Kalecki himself, yet, though.

He's actually really easy to read. Its only some of the stuff in appendices that are a bit mind boggling. But the reward of the book comes from actually understanding financial markets and understanding the flaws of other theories. So if you want to understand other economic frameworks and their problems this is a good book for that. The stuff near the end is kinda scary because he shows that financial crises are recurrent and that their is validity to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. As for Kalecki theres sections of the book on his work too. If you don't want to dish out the money theres 30 lectures that cover his 2 year course online for free.

You can always get reacher than X, it just that the % of your gains keeps diminishing the bigger they get. But earning 1.1 million (before taxes) would never get you less than earning 1 million (before taxes). So you you still have incentives to keep investing your money into the economy.

Awesome thanks!

I'm already accepting of economic cycles, those are already covered in the stuff I've read. About that tendency of the profit rate to fall is that something he takes straight from Marx or does he get there from somewhere else?

My dad gifted it to me at some point, I suspect he might be a commie. The man really has no reason to complain so much
Please convince me to read it

>le 'just like implement reformist policies' man
>a communist
Piketty will save capitalism

I was talking about my dad not Piketty

Your dad is just a progressive liberal, social democrat, radical centrist or whatever it is that reasonable people are calling themselves these days.

Piketty has a Ph.D in economics, you're a random fuck on Veeky Forums.

Who the fuck cares if you think he's wrong, who the fuck cares what you think is "more robust"? Who the fuck even are you?

Explain yourself or don't even comment.

>muh income inequality

Wow brilliant, the defining voice of an epoch.

Marx's politics continue to be poisonous, but at least he had original insights. Its shameless hubris for Picketfence to ape the title of one of the most important books ever and attach it this DSA-brand paperweight. It's "important" only if your goal is to maximize the signaling potential of the bookshelf in your Brooklyn loft in advance of a cocktail party.

Every person with a net worth over $20 dollars would leave the country. Mass starvation and violent anarchy within 5 years. People would bring suitcases of cash to buy rats and edible grass. 1 satoshi = 5 trillion US dollars.

Doesn't he even admit in his book that higher taxes on the rich would result in a lower income for the middle class?

>Piketty has a Ph.D in being indoctrinated
>you're a random person who came up with his own opinions instead of having them gift wrapped to me by the system

>the system
>guy comes out with book criticizing capitalism system
>he's been indoctrinated by the system

this board gets stupider every day

Who /mises/ here?

Attached: Ludwig von Mises 576x720.jpg (240x300, 9K)

>ron paul fanboi posts dumb shit

what is this 2008, kys

Idiot

Fucking lol.

Idiot

Bait

Attached: black swan.jpg (312x475, 17K)

>only one system
>he wasn't indoctrinated by the mind control system to combat the freethinking system
Nice try, system.

Taleb is so unbelievably lucky that his mediocre book criticising models in financial markets (which nobody was even calling infallible or even comprehensive) was released just before the biggest economic event in 80 years

>t-the models were never claimed to be infaillible

He shows how those models fundamentally misunderstand the nature of probability. It's literally like trying to use a map of London to navigate the Swiss Alps. The models had nothing at all to do with reality - they weren't even CLOSE to being right.

No, he (accurately) believes that the marginal tax rate should be at around 80%. The diminishing marginal utility of wealth implies that progressive taxation is welfare-enhancing.

I have never picked up a finance/economics book.

I unironically think the exact same thing.

Morally speaking, there is nothing someone can do today to ensure that their children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's child can live their entire life without working a day in their life. So why do we allow people to accumulate that much wealth? It slows the entire economic system down because money is being thrown into a vacuum being taken out in such a meaningless amounts that it doesn't redistribute into the world.

Dude's right. It'll never happen because MUH socialism and MUH RIGHT as a rich man who is better than everyone because reasons.

Even Marx is taken more seriously by economists than Mises

You don't get it, rich people were literally picked by god to be rich and all their billions are a divine right!

They have made a massive, fuck-off profit for a lot of people and are actually quite bloody accurate the majority of the time. Once you've gotten past your edgy rebellion BE phase you might care to notice that Taleb doesn't really offer any constructive insight apart from regurgitating Hume and repeating 'be more risk averse' ad nauseam. I wouldn't take trading advice from a man whose twitter consists of self-promotion, deliberate provocation and semi-lucid rants.

What are incentives lol

He has a 30 lecture series on YouTube explaining the whole thing, so I’d say check that out and see. If you can parse what’s going on then you’ll be fine doing the readings.

It’s a lot harder than Piketty’s Capital simply because Piketty’s book was aimed such that lay readers could read it too, while Shaikh’s is very much a textbook. It’s also got a lot more math. Shaikh’s background is in physics first, so he does not shy away from mathematical explainations at times. Shaikh isn’t a bad writer or anything, he’s actually very clear, it can just be difficult if you don’t have the background.

I like Kalecki, I think it’s an important advancement that he was able to develop the main ideas of Keynes independently but while retaining class as a central element of his model.

For everybody, if you want to read one thing by Kalecki, read his essay “Political Aspects of Full Employment”, it’s short but is really a hammer blow to social democratic politics.

If you’d bother with the book you’d realize that the major part of the introduction is a sweeping indictment of how economics exists as a field today. He basically accuses it of being scholasticism while pretending to be science.

Pragmatically speaking there is literally no difference between have 1 billion dollars and having 55 billion dollars. Ether way there is no way you are spending that much money in your lifetime. So make the cutoff 1 billion. The incentive is to still be rich as fuck. It would incentivize the person in power to step down because he got what he wanted and someone else would take their place or the business would dissolve and another one would take it's place which would continue the spread of wealth.

That's the problem, keeping everything static means that the people at the bottom have little chance to get to the top.

>just read this system book
>it totally argues against the system flatly for a bit
user you fool, that's the system's oldest trick.

It’s big and I already vote republican

pewdiepie gets taxed at 50% in sweden but he still makes his youtube videos and is still worth over 100 million dollars, face it you are just lazy

He lives UK

You see this is what leftists seem to think. You don't get rich by magic blessings or through pure greed. You have to be productive, and you have to keep being productive to stay rich.
Just because you don't understand capitalism doesn't mean it's broken.

Mate, I repair high end fridges which cost 25 grand, I've seen these people in their habitats, they don't do shit. Producing and being rich are very different, almost completely separate things.

If you aren't producing you won't stay rich, simple as. Wealth doesn't tend to last for longer than three generations without further investment.
Even if these people aren't directly being productive i.e. working or running a business, they may be investing and increasing production elsewhere.
You repairing their fridge is giving you a job to start.

What is diminishing marginal utility lol

Ya man, moving immense wealth around without actually doing anything personally is really productive.

If you actually believed what you say then you would be more for ether higher taxes or redistribution to the lower class. After all, it would create the need for that person to truly be productive.

In the US, the top 1% receives 7.5% of the national income without having to work for it.

I get that you are being hyperbolic, but 90% of wealth gained by a family is lost by the 3rd generation. 70% by the 2nd. The people that grow up with wealth aren't very good at saving (because they don't learn to) nor are they very good at making money (because someone else did it for them).

You assume rich people spend only money on themselves.

Maybe I'm Soros and want to bankroll groups I like around the globe.

I literally don't believe Jeff Bezos Kid's kids will need to work a day in their life.

>you have to keep being productive to stay rich

The rich get a very large part of their wealth through equity income, net interest, inheritance, housing rents and other forms of unearned income.

>Maybe I'm Soros and I want to try to rule the globe.

FTFY. Soros is hardly the dude I want as an example for an ideal world.

They probably won't. That may something that motivates Bezzos. Nonetheless, they likely will only be good for spending that fortune rather than adding to it.

Then we differ.

We can't all have our way.

>not just going innawoods and escaping society/economy

What a great ide-

Attached: 91GZtPaNeFL._SL1500_[1].jpg (1037x1500, 271K)

I don't know of you're being purposely ignorant or misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Productivity isn't always direct; investment is productive, buying goods is productive, hiring contractors is productive, just as actually producing goods is.

Money is a reward for productivity, not vice versa. Think of it as the value you contribute to someone else, not just a separate entity that people just accumulate for no reason. Redistributing wealth does not have the effect of creating any production, on the contrary it disincentivises productivity.

See above. Also take into account that it will always be the case that a small number of people accumulate most of the wealth. Having money increases your opportunities to make more. Same with many things, writing, painting, academic publishing, etc.

Soros: There is no way, only Soros.

Do I get money for buying goods?

You acquire goods, which are valuable.
If I bake bread, and you make medicine, can I have some medicine if I give you bread?
Money is a convenient way of a universal credit which we society agreed on after years of trade. "The Theory of Money and Credit" is a good overview of this, if a little... dry.

Ah, yes, housing rents and inheritance are very productive. Thanks, you’ve convinced me that we must continue to have third-world levels of wealth and income inequality.

Wealth inequality is a literal non-issue

Rich.

Buy up 90% of land in town.

Jack rent price up 1500%.

But iz wuz told iz wuz bein productifz

Absolute state of USA.

Death is better than capitalism sweetie

>third-world levels of wealth and income inequality.
I'm assuming this is hyperbole, if not you're incredibly misinformed.

>inheritance
I already pointed out that wealth does not last more than 3 generations without further investment. It may not be fair that some children are born lucky but it doesn't change that the money will end up being distributed back into the economy somehow.

>rent
I mean... yeah.

>what is competition

I disagree
It's not great, but capitalism isn't making me suffer to a degree where I would feel compelled to end it all

>Implying competition can exist when you own all the land

What happens is the 10% that isn't owned by that asshole jacks the price up 1000% and it still doesn't make a different. People will pay what they have to in order to live where they need to be. If they don't pay for it someone else will.

But I already had goods which were valuable. I thought buying was productive?

Weath inequality decreases social trust and stability, depresses economic growth, increases the use of unproductive guard labour, decreases aggregate demand, makes governments more susceptible to regulatory captures and so on and so on.

>>what is competition

Yeah, oligopoly and oligopsony are not a problem because competition. You’ve just DESTROYED leftists with FACTS and LOGIC, congratulations.

>it's a nobody on Veeky Forums understands even basic finance episode
You dumb cunts, there's not such thing as unproductive income. Stock implies ownership of a company, and it's far from guaranteed income.

There's not free lunch faggots.

Attached: 1506545358503.jpg (451x432, 24K)

Whatever drawbacks there are to an unequal society (not as many as you posit), they are still a little hiccup compared to the disasters that could be prompted by severe taxation as proposed by retards like Piketty

You didn't actually read what I posted, did you?

Monopolies don't happen naturally. They require legislative power to enforce or else there is simply no limit to a competitor's innovation to provide something better.
In your property example, firstly there is the 'how did they even buy all that land' which we'll ignore; then there is the issue that people simply can't afford the land and thus won't purchase it. Believe it or not it is very damaging to drive up costs. Let's assume that a small number of very rich corporations rent that land - who is now rich enough to buy from them after their huge investment? They've collectively driven out their own customers from the market, which must now correct itself.

See above.

People (including businesses) would simply leave the town
Do you people even think before posting?

Great evidence. Never happens, but you stay in your bubble JR.

>unproductive income

Virtually no economist denies the validity of the term “unearned income”. I bet you also unironically think that “public good”, “information assymetry” and “negative externality” are just leftist buzzwords.

>There's not free lunch faggots

Dude, you’ve just BTFOed lefties EPIC STYLE XDDD

>Monopolies don't happen naturally. They require legislative power to enforce or else there is simply no limit to a competitor's innovation to provide something better.
>In your property example, firstly there is the 'how did they even buy all that land' which we'll ignore; then there is the issue that people simply can't afford the land and thus won't purchase it. Believe it or not it is very damaging to drive up costs. Let's assume that a small number of very rich corporations rent that land - who is now rich enough to buy from them after their huge investment? They've collectively driven out their own customers from the market, which must now correct itself.

1) They were rich and had the means to buy the land.
2) They bought the land.

What the fuck are you talking about.

Imagine being a protestant anglo and thinking wealth is morally good

Find me 1 (one) single modern economist (which isn't finance, but that's besides the point) that will tell you a risk free yield is actually possible.

>muh lefties BTFO EPIC
No, I've just read a fucking book you retard.

>they are still a little hiccup compared to the disasters that could be prompted by severe taxation as proposed by retards like Piketty

Do you have any concrete arguments against the methodology used by Piketty, Saez and Stantcheva?

>Monopolies don't happen naturally

But oligopolies do, which is what you conveniently ignore

Honestly just cut down the working week and i'd be happy.

8x5 is a meme.

My negro

you didn't provide evidence either, sperg

>zero zum fallacy the book

Absolutely disgusting.

This thread started so well...

>Do you have any concrete arguments against the methodology used by Piketty, Saez and Stantcheva?

Rich people wouldn't want to pay such taxes. It's as simple as that

All they need is an incentive...

Does he talk about crypto? If not then it's not important

I don't know how to expand from there... What happens *after* they spend all this money and buy the land, that's what I'm pointing out.

They do indeed. But they have the same restrictions in a free market, namely they cannot drive out their own customers or they are simply overtaken by a more competitive market member.

>You didn't actually read what I posted, did you?
>buying goods is productive
>Money is a reward for productivity
I buy good > I receive money
Why doesn't this happen?
Either buying isn't productive or money is not a reward for productivity.

>product costs 9,99
>give 10
>"here is your 0,01 Sir"
:^)

but honestly you do get a product that is worth something don't you, and you generate more money within the economy or whatever
you aren't burning the money

Piketty, Saez and Stantcheva take into account that high-income workers are particularly elastic in how their taxable income decreases with higher tax rates. In fact, there is an empirical study done by Emmanuel Saez together with Jon Gruber which demonstrates precisely this point: eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/gruber.pdf. You clearly haven’t read the paper we are discussing, have you?