logoalt Hacker News

no_wizard04/03/20254 repliesview on HN

He's one economist from a very conservative line of thinking.

As a counter example, Thomas Piketty argues at length that taxation and wealth redistribution remain an effective way to bolster a societies resilience and lessen wealth inequality - which is still a very real issue in the world, and arguably one that the US shows can have very real negative consequences for letting it go unaddressed.

As for demand and inflating prices, yeah, domestic products may be more attractive, but the economy is huge, and much of it does not have a domestic allegory. The other issue here is the tax is on all imports, not only manufactured goods, which means raw materials - which often have to be sourced elsewhere - make manufacturing more expensive even domestically


Replies

ccorcos04/03/2025

I asked ChatGPT to explain the arguments of Sowell and Piketty.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67eebae2-df3c-800b-aba9-6e36c04810...

I liked Sowell's book, "Wealth, Poverty and Politics". Can you recommend one of Piketty's books?

> raw materials - which often have to be sourced elsewhere

Is that necessarily true? The US has abundant natural resources. Tesla could be mining lithium a few hundred miles away from their factory instead of importing it...

show 1 reply
dismalaf04/03/2025

Remember when Piketty advised the government of François Hollande? They enacted the wealth tax and there was simply a ton of capital flight and nothing was fixed? Leading to Macron winning the elections and enacting a ton of conservative policies and leading to pretty decent economic growth...

show 2 replies
ericmay04/03/2025

Maybe we should raise tariffs and raise taxes on the wealthy? Does it have to be framed as an either-or?

> and much of it does not have a domestic allegory

Well some would argue that's the problem. Maybe now we will? Idk.

show 1 reply
Domenic_S04/03/2025

> taxation and wealth redistribution remain an effective way to bolster a societies resilience

Tangentially:

It’s wild how inconsistent the public and political reactions are to different ways of getting revenue. Take this common pattern:

When DOGE identifies billions of dollars in waste, fraud, or unnecessary spending, the reaction is often: "That’s only 0.01% of the federal budget. It’s nothing!"

But when someone proposes a tax on billionaires that would over time raise a similar amount suddenly the reaction flips: "We’ll solve inequality! Fund healthcare!"

This contradiction is everywhere. How can $20 billion in government savings be "nothing," while $20 billion in new tax revenue is "transformational"? It's the same money.

show 4 replies