I have not read Piketty's book. But can someone tell me how he showed that his discovered pattern of r>g is applicable to capitalist driven economies only and not ANY general economy?
The possibility of faster rate of return on investments (whatever resource you are investing) is supposed to exist in any gamed system. In an overall system where the available resources max at X, any individual's objective is too attain the largest portion of X as possible.
Whether that be through promoting capitalist ideologies, bureaucratic ideologies, or imperialistic ideologies, etc.
Generally speaking the ideologies you try to impress on others is spoken of in terms of being best for the 'g' value (overall economic growth), but we all know each person will just play the game of whatever system they are in to attain their own personal 'r' value.
Basically, what I am saying is: there have been very poor and very rich people in every single economic system throughout the span of human history. And ,at least some prevalent power distribution dynamics (game theory) can most likely be used to explain them all.
Th funny part is that r>g was the whole purpose of capitalism. If that were not true then you would not have the huge incentive for individuals hoping to build economic empires (or generally grow their fortunes decently).
r>g seems to be the promise that royalty/aristocrats must receive before making a political decision. Or the 'promise' Columbus looked forward too before he would 'discover' a new world for Spain. Or the promise any individual player must believe in if they are going to do something significant beyond themselves.
r>g was the even the general promise given to people during communist revolutions. Take money from the rich and give it to us, the poor.
There has to be incentive for individual players for them to want to pursue an ideology.
So, I am always surprised when people take ideologies so seriously, because in the end it's only a bit of game dynamics.
If someone wants government to put more focus on redistribution like Picketty, then so be it. All that means is that the place to have power will be via a position in government. I guess the people pushing for this enjoy the latest productivity of Congress. ;)
I, for one, do not care. Everyone will simply (as people have always done) 'play the game'. And then some time down the line the "winners" of whatever the game is will be yelled at and something will commence a 'restart'.
... and in the meantime, the systems of thought (as I tried to argue in my other posts) that are erected to hide these basics behaviors will become increasingly intricate and complex and hide this very fact that people are people in increasingly interesting ways.
I believe, as I mentioned above, the idea that 'humans are not rational' is one of the latest such constructs to hide basic reality.
In a way, it is an interesting evolution of delusion, to the point where it gets extremely hard to avoid being drawn into it.
Thinking this line further, maybe the next restart will be rather due to the fact that the complexity is so big that people just accept reality?
The possibility of faster rate of return on investments (whatever resource you are investing) is supposed to exist in any gamed system. In an overall system where the available resources max at X, any individual's objective is too attain the largest portion of X as possible.
Whether that be through promoting capitalist ideologies, bureaucratic ideologies, or imperialistic ideologies, etc.
Generally speaking the ideologies you try to impress on others is spoken of in terms of being best for the 'g' value (overall economic growth), but we all know each person will just play the game of whatever system they are in to attain their own personal 'r' value.
Basically, what I am saying is: there have been very poor and very rich people in every single economic system throughout the span of human history. And ,at least some prevalent power distribution dynamics (game theory) can most likely be used to explain them all.
Th funny part is that r>g was the whole purpose of capitalism. If that were not true then you would not have the huge incentive for individuals hoping to build economic empires (or generally grow their fortunes decently).
r>g seems to be the promise that royalty/aristocrats must receive before making a political decision. Or the 'promise' Columbus looked forward too before he would 'discover' a new world for Spain. Or the promise any individual player must believe in if they are going to do something significant beyond themselves.
r>g was the even the general promise given to people during communist revolutions. Take money from the rich and give it to us, the poor.
There has to be incentive for individual players for them to want to pursue an ideology.
So, I am always surprised when people take ideologies so seriously, because in the end it's only a bit of game dynamics.
If someone wants government to put more focus on redistribution like Picketty, then so be it. All that means is that the place to have power will be via a position in government. I guess the people pushing for this enjoy the latest productivity of Congress. ;)
I, for one, do not care. Everyone will simply (as people have always done) 'play the game'. And then some time down the line the "winners" of whatever the game is will be yelled at and something will commence a 'restart'.
Welcome to humanity.