Capital in the Twenty-First Century

[Sheilbh]

Received, gained.

Rather passive verbs, no? Who did they receive or gain it from?

[Eddie Teach]

I guess ignorance truly is bliss.  I mean,  11Cool4J here is having a riot.

His mama said knock you out.

[Admiral Yi]

Rather passive verbs, no? Who did they receive or gain it from?

What difference does it make who they received it from?

[Sheilbh]

What difference does it make who they received it from?

Style. Neither of those words work in the sentence because they leave you wondering.

[Capetan Mihali]

How much of the national income, as the quote has it?  I'm not sure.

Or a dollar amount.

Well, that would work for my personal income, but not really for the "percent of the increase in US national income between 1977 and 2007." 

I wouldn't mind telling you my own dollar amount, but it seems a little peripheral to what we're discussing; "gained, "received," even "earned" would serve fine for my, and most of our, individual incomes but not as well for the increase-in-share-of-total that was at issue.

[Admiral Yi]

Style. Neither of those words work in the sentence because they leave you wondering.

And with the use of "appropriate" your curiosity is quenched?

I'm not following your logic.

[Sheilbh]

No, I want to read the 700 page book to see the point this objectionable sentence is making

My point is purely stylistic. They're more passive verbs. Appropriated, earned and accumulated work. They are things the richest 1% did to the increase of US national income. Could you really write 'the richest 1% received 60% of the increase of US national income' without leaving the reader wondering, who gave it to them and why?

[FunkMonk]

Part of the Introduction to the book, for those who are interested.
Looks really interesting. I may pick it up in the summer. 

[Ideologue]

How much of the national income, as the quote has it?  I'm not sure.

Or a dollar amount.

Well, that would work for my personal income, but not really for the "percent of the increase in US national income between 1977 and 2007." 

I wouldn't mind telling you my own dollar amount, but it seems a little peripheral to what we're discussing; "gained, "received," even "earned" would serve fine for my, and most of our, individual incomes but not as well for the increase-in-share-of-total that was at issue.

Definitely appropriated.  You were paid by the Vermont Treasury, after all.  THINK ON YOUR SINS.

[Ideologue]

No, I want to read the 700 page book to see the point this objectionable sentence is making

My point is purely stylistic. They're more passive verbs. Appropriated, earned and accumulated work. They are things the richest 1% did to the increase of US national income. Could you really write 'the richest 1% received 60% of the increase of US national income' without leaving the reader wondering, who gave it to them and why?

"Received" would suck.  "Accumulated" is fine and, yes, neutral.

Though I doubt courting neutrality is the highest concern for a guy who titled his book "Capital."

[Gups]

Received, gained.

Rather passive verbs, no? Who did they receive or gain it from?

Secured

[Norgy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_5154879.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

U.S. government policies reflect the desires of the wealthy and interest groups more than the average citizen, according to researchers at Princeton University and Northwestern University.

"[W]e believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened," write Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in an April 9 article posted on the Princeton website and scheduled for fall publication in the journal Perspectives on Politics.

Gilens and Page analyzed 1,779 policy issues from 1981 to 2002 and compared changes to the preferences of median-income Americans, the top-earning 10 percent, and organized interest groups and industries.

"Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all," the researchers write in the article titled, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens."

[Admiral Yi]

No, I want to read the 700 page book to see the point this objectionable sentence is making

Which is, presumably, the exact same thing that would happen if he had written "earned" instead of "appropriated."

I can tell you already without having read the book what point he is aiming for: he wants to create the implication that those gains in income were ill-gotten, without having to defend an actual case for law breaking.

I'm also pretty sure that if he gets around to it, that that 60% of increase in income is a function of assets held ("hoarded?") and the bull market we just experienced.

[Tamas]

I am always suspicious that the talk about inequality is politically motivated. What I would be more interested about is the quality of life of the given "classes" or "stratas".

What I mean is: if income inequality has risen in the last, say, 30 years, while the living standards of the people on the lower (or really, any) end of it decreased, then it is clearly a case of concern. If, however, income inequality has risen while standard of living has also risen for everybody, then frankly the whole inequality part is largely a non issue, and a byproduct only jealous people care about.


Also, does the summary basically says that the European welfare states we have been maintaining via accumulating great debt are the exception to the general economic happens and not the norm? And maybe that means we should not wreck ourselves trying to maintain them at current levels?

[Valmy]

What I mean is: if income inequality has risen in the last, say, 30 years, while the living standards of the people on the lower (or really, any) end of it decreased, then it is clearly a case of concern. If, however, income inequality has risen while standard of living has also risen for everybody, then frankly the whole inequality part is largely a non issue, and a byproduct only jealous people care about.

I think it is damaging here because of its political and social impacts, not because I am concerned people are starving in the streets.