Grappling With Piketty

Thomas Piketty in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Thomas Piketty in Cambridge, Massachusetts

The thesis is that the 1% will compound capital from here at such a rate as to take all the cash and leave the 99% with little. The underlying assumption seems to be that compounding large pools of capital over long periods of time is straightforward and low-risk.

First question: If that’s true, shouldn’t national pension programs like US Social Security be immediately privatized and invested the same way to receive the twin benefits of harvesting great capital compounding opportunity for the benefit of 99% and also suppressing investment returns of the 1%? Piketty walks up to this conclusion and then backs away, apparently because that would be too risky for long-term retirement assets?

But if it’s that risky for e.g. the Social Security pool, isn’t it also riskier than he says for the 1% investing their own capital? Note that the investment approach for Social Security could be to invest the entire pool like a university endowment, not individuals investing their own cash.

Second, if capital compounding will work so well for the 1%, isn’t that result of a world awash with opportunities to productively invest capital? Isn’t that world the opposite of the “secular stagnation”/”innovation is dead” world so many economists believe we are in? Isn’t that world one that is fantastic for consumers who benefit from all of the resulting innovation and technological progress? Wouldn’t Piketty’s prescriptions suppress that hypothetical scope and rate of technological and material progress?

So is Piketty therefore proposing that the 99% be made worse off absolutely in order to be better off relatively? Will the 99% be consulted at any point as to which of these scenarios they’d like to see play out? Or is the theory that liberal technocratic economists in Paris and places like it get to make those decisions on behalf of the 99%?

Source Tweets: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14

Who Is C.P. Snow?

C._P._SnowC.P. Snow was a British chemist, novelist, and government official who gave a famous lecture, “The Two Cultures“, in 1959. The traditional literary culture is behaving like a state whose power is rapidly declining, standing on its precarious dignity.

Whereas the scientific culture is expansive, not restrictive, confident at the roots, certain that history is on its side. Impatient, intolerant, creative rather than critical, good-natured and brash. Neither culture knows the virtues of the other; often it seems they deliberately do not want to know.

Resentment traditional culture feels for scientific shaded with fear; for reverse, resentment not shaded but brimming with irritation. When scientists are faced with an expression of the traditional culture, it tends to make their feet ache.

Snow then implores each culture to seek to understand and embrace the other to come together to improve the world. The same attitude is needed today. Read his entire essay here which is worth reading.

Source: Tweets 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

San Francisco’s Housing Problem

photo credit: Thomas Hawk - cc

photo credit: Thomas Hawkcc

It is time for fundamental reform of SF’s insane restrictions on residential building. Whenever I tweet about need for more housing supply in San Francisco, people respond that new high-end housing won’t help lower-income people. That is exactly backwards. New high-end housing supply will redirect demand that is currently causing prices of existing housing to rise.

If you want existing SF housing prices to stop rising or fall, you should logically cheer for as much new high-end building as possible. And of course, any/all building restrictions that are holding back BOTH high-end and low-end housing construction should be reformed ASAP.

The root cause of SF’s housing problem is the basic rule of supply and demand. Time to end the madness, including restrictions and price controls. The most effective way to protest SF’s housing problems is to exert pressure on the SF Board of Supervisors. They are the key. “Our approach to housing in San Francisco is very dysfunctional,” said Scott Wiener, a SF supervisor who is a proponent of new housing. “…The system is intentionally designed to make it as difficult as possible to build new housing.”

Source:
Andreessen’s tweets on the SF housing problem: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

Responses:

We Live In John Law’s World

john-lawThe most interesting person in Western history who most people have never heard of is John Law, the inventor of the concept of paper money. Born in Scotland, Law began by killing a man in a duel over the affections of Elizabeth Hamilton, former mistress of King William III. Law fled to the continent, and ultimately — and improbably — became Finance Minister to King Louis XV of France in 1716.

Law believed that money is only a means of exchange that doesn’t constitute wealth in itself, and that wealth flows from trade. As such, Law proposed and implemented paper money issued by the French government, and banned gold and silver currency. Contemporary economists screamed in protest, and yet the paper money plan worked. French economy roared to life.

Sadly, Law’s other project — the Mississippi Company — spectacularly imploded. Law fled France and died broke in Venice in 1729. Law was right. The international monetary system finally fully dropped the gold standard in 1971, 300 yrs after Law was born. We live in John Law’s world.

Schumpeter later wrote: “Law is in a class by himself. Brilliant and profound, placed in the front ranks of monetary theorists of all time.” I am willing to lay odds that Satoshi Nakamoto is John Law’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson.

Recommended Reading:

Sources: Andreessen’s tweets on John Law – 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12