Was he, though? He was for the pre-Industrial Revolution period, of which he sat at the cusp (so arguably he couldn’t see what was to come). Makes me wonder if we’re at a similar junction.
Malthus was wrong until his era then, and the information that things were changing wasn’t available to him.
Piketty is either right about r>g or he isn’t. I’ve seen a lot of people disliking his argument, but nobody really refuting that the rate or return on capital in general is greater than the growth rate of the economy right now. The future might be different.
I'm not so sure about this one. After the publication of Capital in the 21st Century in 2013, the nominal Treasury rate has been around 2-3%, while the nominal growth rate has been around 4-5%. Of course, it depends a little on what R you want to use exactly, but it's not as clear-cut as you make this out to be.
Piketty is trying to solve too many problems with one comprehensive approach. There is no doubt in my mind that growing inequality poses unique challenges to a pluralistic society. There is also no doubt that climate change impacts different countries differently. Suffice to say, poverty and climate change - and many other factors - have set off a wave of migrations that challenge the current order of things. Reducing the discussion to 'Piketty just wants to tax the rich' is not doing justice to the work done. And yes - I did read his books.
Pikety: To be honest I also never finished his book... but papers. In any case on the Climate item and RCP (where yes the Degrowthers Anti-Capitalist Left mix are just grabbing on pretext) I would reference Michael Leibreich of Cleaning Up ex Bloomberg New Energy (and hardly an Anti) as there is I think huge spin on RCP from the green-alarmist factions (which Michael heavily criticises for unhelpful much like Noah)
(a) RCP 8.5 is officially bollox
Back in 2019, I created a Twitter hashtag, #RCP85isBollox, to highlight the danger of building the case for climate action on a wildly implausible scenario. This month RCP 8.5 was retired. https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/rcp-85-is-officially-bollox
Both the Substack post and the episode are quite useful to understand the wrong-headedness (politically) in the long-running usage of RCP 8.5 in the way it was used in public, press, etc. (somewhat indicative of how click-baited alarmism as a demarche has undercut overall credibility)
The thing that people most often create with agentic AI is not an app in the traditional sense of a product that many people will use. It is really a personal utility or tool that solves your own very bespoke problem. And that's fine! The issue is that most people don't understand that yet. They still think they're the next Steve Jobs, because they lack experience and understanding of market fit, etc.
For this decade, the part of Thomas Malthus will be played by Thomas Piketty
Was he, though? He was for the pre-Industrial Revolution period, of which he sat at the cusp (so arguably he couldn’t see what was to come). Makes me wonder if we’re at a similar junction.
Well he’s right about R>G. Right now anyway. Malthus was also correct for his era.
It is not at all clear Piketty is right in fact, econometrically.
And Malthus was already wrong for the time he was alive, it just was not yet visible to him: https://ourworldindata.org/breaking-the-malthusian-trap
Malthus was wrong until his era then, and the information that things were changing wasn’t available to him.
Piketty is either right about r>g or he isn’t. I’ve seen a lot of people disliking his argument, but nobody really refuting that the rate or return on capital in general is greater than the growth rate of the economy right now. The future might be different.
I'm not so sure about this one. After the publication of Capital in the 21st Century in 2013, the nominal Treasury rate has been around 2-3%, while the nominal growth rate has been around 4-5%. Of course, it depends a little on what R you want to use exactly, but it's not as clear-cut as you make this out to be.
Piketty is trying to solve too many problems with one comprehensive approach. There is no doubt in my mind that growing inequality poses unique challenges to a pluralistic society. There is also no doubt that climate change impacts different countries differently. Suffice to say, poverty and climate change - and many other factors - have set off a wave of migrations that challenge the current order of things. Reducing the discussion to 'Piketty just wants to tax the rich' is not doing justice to the work done. And yes - I did read his books.
Pikety: To be honest I also never finished his book... but papers. In any case on the Climate item and RCP (where yes the Degrowthers Anti-Capitalist Left mix are just grabbing on pretext) I would reference Michael Leibreich of Cleaning Up ex Bloomberg New Energy (and hardly an Anti) as there is I think huge spin on RCP from the green-alarmist factions (which Michael heavily criticises for unhelpful much like Noah)
(a) RCP 8.5 is officially bollox
Back in 2019, I created a Twitter hashtag, #RCP85isBollox, to highlight the danger of building the case for climate action on a wildly implausible scenario. This month RCP 8.5 was retired. https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/rcp-85-is-officially-bollox
And
(b) Cleaning Up, Michael Liebreich welcomes Professor Roger Pielke Jr. back to explore why RCP 8.5 became the dominant "business as usual" climate scenario, and what its demise means for climate research, policymaking and public debate.: https://www.cleaningup.live/rcp85-is-dead-what-comes-next-ep260-roger-pielke-jr/
Both the Substack post and the episode are quite useful to understand the wrong-headedness (politically) in the long-running usage of RCP 8.5 in the way it was used in public, press, etc. (somewhat indicative of how click-baited alarmism as a demarche has undercut overall credibility)
The thing that people most often create with agentic AI is not an app in the traditional sense of a product that many people will use. It is really a personal utility or tool that solves your own very bespoke problem. And that's fine! The issue is that most people don't understand that yet. They still think they're the next Steve Jobs, because they lack experience and understanding of market fit, etc.
So important to call out the misuse of data as you do here with Borjas.