
Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough - e15ctr0n
http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/11/24/clamping-down-with-law-and-order-will-not-be-enough/
======
mikeash
There is a lot of _extremely_ opinionated and pointed discussion going on in
these comments.

How many of you read the article?

How many of you read the _original_ article, the one published in Le Monde, in
French?

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the people here criticizing what
Piketty is saying don't even know what he is saying.

~~~
coffeevradar
Here's an English translation:

[http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/11/24/clamping-down-
with...](http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/11/24/clamping-down-with-law-and-
order-will-not-be-enough/)

~~~
dang
Since that's as close as we can get to the original source in English, let's
just change the URL to it.

Was
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/30/why-i...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/30/why-
inequality-is-to-blame-for-the-rise-of-the-islamic-state/).

------
nateberkopec
I don't understand why we shouldn't believe what's coming straight out of
ISIS' mouth.

ISIS has said they're killing us because of their interpretation of a book
written in the first millennia. They say this every time they attack us. Yet
(mostly on the left) we keep coming up with reasons why this isn't the case.
"No, actually, you're not attacking us for that reason, really it's our fault
because we gave the oil to the emirs."

When someone shoots up a Planned Parenthood, however, he _doesn 't even have
to make a public statement_ and the same people are quick to blame Christian
beliefs or rhetoric and immediately accept the ideological reason for the
violence. Why don't we say that gunmen attack Planned Parenthoods because of
income inequality in the United States?

Finally, is there anywhere to find the original article by Piketty in English?
The linked version is in French.

~~~
criley2
"I don't understand why we shouldn't believe what's coming straight out of
ISIS' mouth."

Because they're proven masters at propaganda and messaging. To take prop at
face value is the definition of naive.

"ISIS has said they're killing us because of their interpretation of a book
written in the first millennia."

That's their justification for their actions, not the reason. Come on.

Recruiting for ISIS pays $5000 - $10000 per successful recruit.

If their true motivation is purely religious, if religion is the INCENTIVE,
then why incentivize people with lump sumps larger than yearly income from
honest work?

ISIS represents a way out of poverty, at least, that's how they sell it in
recruiting.

"When someone shoots up a Planned Parenthood, however, he doesn't even have to
make a public statement and the same people are quick to blame Christian
beliefs or rhetoric and immediately accept the ideological reason for the
violence."

We call that quid pro quo, and yes, it's intentional. If Islam itself is
responsible for the actions of a minority of a minority, then it stands to
reason that Christianity itself is responsible for the actions of a minority
of a minority. So long as conservatives blame Islam in general for ISIS, we
will blame Christianity in general for Westboro Baptist, for Clinic
Terrorists, for Jehovah Witness child negligence murder, etc.

"Why don't we say that gunmen attack Planned Parenthoods because of income
inequality in the United States?"

We do, often, we bemoan the war against education (ignorance as pride) and
growing wealth inequality for social tension and violence both here in America
and worldwide.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Ah. People are in poverty and to get out of poverty they blow themselves up in
a public place such that they can murder a bunch of innocent civilians in the
process. Got it. Good to know.

~~~
criley2
If your country was destroyed, there was no jobs, you had no money, no food,
your home was crumbling, your siblings starving, your parents helpless... and
you were 17 and powerless, and someone offered you $10,000 to do it... would
you? Would you do something terrible to ensure that your family got a huge
payday that would put food on their table for potentially years?

~~~
forrestthewoods
No. No I would not murder dozens of innocent people. There's a lot of poverty
in the world and the vast majority of the impoverished do not commit such
atrocities.

~~~
criley2
"no I wouldn't"

I guess it was too much to ask you to walk a mile in their shoes, because we
internet dwelling rich folk literally cannot comprehend poverty on this level,
of watching your family die before your eyes as a teenager.

"vast majority of the impoverished do not commit such atrocities."

The vast majority don't have a years pay untaxed offered, never have to make
the choice. Easy to say they won't do something when they have no option to do
it.

Then again, with how INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL ISIS has been at recruiting perhaps
you need to reevaluate your opinion of how the impoverished of the world
behave when given opportunity.

Many impoverished will loot during riots or engage in widespread gang violence
in cities, they'll overthrow secular governments in favor of Islamic ones in
the Arab Spring, they'll take the money and kill for ISIS.

I think people need to be more honest and realize that true destitution means
they don't have to play within the bounds of economic and moral systems. We're
controlled by our jobs and our money, and if we have neither, we will do
whatever is necessary to provide for ourselves and our families, including
hurting people "from other tribes".

~~~
forrestthewoods
It is possible for me to walk two miles and still conclude that no I would not
purposefully murder dozens of innocent civilians. It's possible I've even
thought about this before.

But it's cool that you think there's only one logical outcome and anyone who
disagrees is just too unempathetic to see why your view is the only correct
view.

~~~
dang
Please don't use snark when the topic is already inflammatory.

------
judah
The cause of ISIS is Islamic extremism.

Not income inequality. Not climate change. Islamic extremism.

Those who claim otherwise are merely playing politics to advance political
agendas.

Sam Harris, the well-known atheist author and speaker, describes such people
well[0]:

"These people are part of what [Muslim reformist] Maajid Nawaz has termed the
“regressive Left”—pseudo-liberals who are so blinded by identity politics that
they reliably take the side of a backward mob over one of its victims. Rather
than protect individual women, apostates, intellectuals, cartoonists,
novelists, and true liberals from the intolerance of religious imbeciles, they
protect these theocrats from criticism."

To say the problem with ISIS is anything other than Islamic extremism is a red
herring. In this case, Piketty has long been advancing his political agenda
regarding income inequality. He is merely playing politics here, using the
ISIS problem to advance his agenda.

[0]: [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-
inte...](http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sam-harris-the-salon-interview)

~~~
bosdev
What is the origin of the Islamic extremism? Why does this group of Muslims
kill people while the vast majority do not?

~~~
RickHull
Many Muslims are subject to extreme indoctrination and brainwashing regarding
the metaphysics of martyrdom. Jihadist imams have figured out the virality of
this particular meme, and the environment in which it may take root.

Depressed economic conditions end up gifting jihadist recruiters with more
reasons for individuals to join up and become a martyr.

------
Mikeb85
Just read the article - the Washington post did quite a bit of editorializing.

> Le tout-sécuritaire ne suffira pas

Translated roughly as "Total security will not suffice" (or the "state
security apparatus" will not suffice). His argument isn't that inequality
created ISIS. But rather that:

> C’est une évidence : le terrorisme se nourrit de la poudrière inégalitaire
> moyen-orientale, que nous avons largement contribuée à créer. Daech, « Etat
> islamique en Irak et au Levant », est directement issu de la décomposition
> du régime irakien, et plus généralement de l’effondrement du système de
> frontières établi dans la région en 1920.

He says the evidence shows that terrorism preys on the "powder keg" of middle-
eastern inequality, and that the invasion of Iraq (and destruction of the
previous regime) lead to the creation of ISIS. Not exactly ground breaking.

Anyhow, I'm not going to translate the whole thing, but near the end this:

> Rien ne peut excuser cette dérive sanguinaire, machiste et pathétique.

"Nothing can excuse this bloodthirsty, masochist and pathetic act"

> Tout juste peut-on noter que le chômage et la discrimination professionnelle
> à l’embauche (particulièrement massive pour les personnes qui ont coché
> toutes les bonnes cases en termes de diplôme, expérience, etc., comme l’ont
> montré des travaux récents; voir également ici) ne doivent pas aider.

"We can only note that unemployment and discrimination don't help"

> C’est par le développement social et équitable que la haine sera vaincue.

"It's through social development and equality that hate will be defeated"

Again, not ground breaking. It took the west several reformations of our
culture/religion, and 2 world wars to finally get our heads out of our
proverbial asses. Also, social welfare has played a huge part in the rise of a
real 'middle class'. We aren't as capitalist as we think, and 'socialism' is
part of the reason inequality isn't as bad today as in 1900. But, as the data
shows, inequality is on the rise yet again (as conservative politics are also
on the rise).

------
etangent
He's sort of right, but not in the way this article is going to be interpreted
domestically (see comments in this thread for an example). Oil revenue in the
Gulf countries has enabled wealthy elites to sponsor _madrassas_ around the
world, which are pivotal to the spread of _Wahhabism_ , an arch-conservative
branch of Islam. The Gulf elites are not the cause of Wahhabism (its roots go
further back and it was more of a grassroots movement in the 1970s), but they
are its most important promoters.

Another contributing factor is high birthrate in poor Muslim countries which
has caused a bit of a demographic shock (the low-birthrate Europe has
simultaneously benefitted and suffered from it, first importing immigrants
from MENA as a source of cheap labor, and them having to deal with the
disaffected and radicalized 2nd generation of the original immigrants, after
failing to integrate them successfully into the mainstream society). It is no
secret to anyone that poor uneducated people who are also highly religious
tend to have more kids on average. This is one of the primary causes behind
Islamisation of Turkey, formerly a staunchly secular country. Turkey is now,
together with the Gulf countries, one of the major "sticks in the wheel"
behind eradicating ISIS in Syria.

------
Brakenshire
I don't really see the controversy, it's just a reframing of well-known issues
about the conflict, using different terminology.

For instance, there's obviously an economic element to the conflict between
the richer, more urban Shia Alawites who live principally in the Western part
of Syria, and the poorer, more rural Sunni population. I have read that part
of the destabilization is down to mass movements of the urban poor into the
cities in the years running up to the conflict.

And Saudi Arabia and other wealthy oil rich states clearly provide religious
and armaments funding to support hardline interpretations of Islam, which
means that the conflict between Shia and Sunni takes on a much more
fundamentalist tone. That power arises from their wealth relative to other
regions in the area.

As I say, I don't think either of these things are particularly controversial.
If we were talking about the rural poor moving into the cities in China, we
wouldn't have a problem talking about it as an issue of income inequality. It
seems quite obvious that this is a major issue in a lot of the developing
world (where income inequality tends to be far higher than in the West,
particularly in resource rich countries).

I wouldn't say this has much relevance to policy in the developed world. It
would be dubious if Piketty tried to use this to draw conclusions about the
West, but I can't see he has done that.

~~~
mikeash
It's amazing to watch phrases that get used in politics take on a life of
their own.

If you say, "Revolutions happen when the masses can't afford to eat," probably
nobody will bat an eye.

If you say "Revolutions happen when income inequality grows to the point where
the masses can't afford to eat," people freak out.

~~~
dragonwriter
And don't even think about saying the even more accurate, "revolutions often
happen when there is strong income inequality and limited upward mobility, the
rich can afford luxury, the poor can't afford to eat, and the middle/working
class -- who _can_ afford to eat, and even have some leisure to think about
insecurity, and to think about who to _blame_ for their insecurity -- see the
conditions of the poor and the luxury of rich and their own risk of joining
the poor, and blame the rich for it"...

Its rarely the _poor_ who lead who revolutions, its usually the middle/working
class (and often those members of the existing elites that, either from
genuine sympathy or opportunism, decide to take up their cause against the
rest of the elites.)

------
nickpsecurity
It could contribute to it but seems to miss... idk.. the whole history of the
Middle East post Western involvement. The patterns we see today in the Middle
East go back to around 1900 or so with attempts of imperialists to hit them,
divide them, turn them into indentured servants, and take their resources.
Combine that with religious, ethnic, power-related, and financial aspects over
decades to get a huge mess. So, I'd be looking at money, power, religion, and
typical politics as a start.

Looking at that, I see the same trends that relate to violent regime change
and terrorism over there that I always see. It usually involves a Western
power (esp U.S.) covertly screwing with a country to cause a regime change or
battles between them + eastern country (esp Russia) for influence/resources.
The radical ideology and funding put in by Saudi Arabia comes into play. The
damage and power vacuums from an invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan fuels it,
literally with fuel & weapons. ;) Arab Spring and aftermath of that may have
been the final straw setting things in motion.

All in all, looks more like Western imperialism, local dictatorships, and
religious sect (esp Saudi-promoted) combining to create a disaster that leads
to many innocents being beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered over there with
a few in the West, too. Same stuff, same area, different country and year.

And, unlike international media, most of the Western media is consistently
avoiding the U.S. imperialism and Saudi Arabia angles. Just like they did for
Iraq. Just like for 9/11\. The problem isn't income inequality: it's countries
sabotaging other countries with corrupt ideology, covert actions, and overt
war. The result is what CIA types call "blowback." We call it tragedy but they
won't let dots be easily connected.

------
cc_wk
One of the episodes of the 1960s Batman series involved the UN, and seeing
that episode playing in bar a couple of months ago made me think of how no TV
show today would feature a UN plotline; the most likely plotline indeed would
only be about diplomatic immunity - ie how some people get to be above the
law. My point here is that in the late 1960s, international diplomacy was
respected enough to be part of the pop culture conversation. Fifty years
later, teh pop culture conversation centres around popular violence (mass
shootings) and terrorism, like ISIS. It seems to me that in the past, people
had hopes for the future and believed the politicians were working to make a
better world. Today, they don't believe that and see how politicians have
created a world were some people are above the law and the rest of us are
considered irrelevant and to be placated with realty-tv entertainment.

When inequality leads to hopelessness, what are we to honestly expect?

------
Paul_S
Let's call it a contributing factor and make the headline less insane.

~~~
ultramancool
Yes, please stop publishing these ridiculous headlines that seem to be used
just to incite political arguments for clicks and ad revenue.

~~~
mikeash
Where did this headline even come from?

The original headline is "Le tout-sécuritaire ne suffira pas" which they
translated as "Clamping down with law and order will not be enough" (which
looks like a good translation to me). The linked Washington Post article is
titled "This might be the most controversial theory for what’s behind the rise
of ISIS." Yet on HN it's called, "Thomas Piketty: Income inequality is behind
the rise of Islamic State." Was something changed, or did the person who
posted this decide to make up something that would incite controversy?

------
tosseraccount
No Wait! Global Warming Caused ISIS ! Anti-capitalist Naomi Klein says ISIS
and global warming caused by same forces :
[http://junkscience.com/2015/11/anti-capitalist-naomi-
klein-s...](http://junkscience.com/2015/11/anti-capitalist-naomi-klein-says-
isis-and-global-warming-caused-by-same-forces/)

No wait: Obama caused ISIS :
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-
cause...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-caused-isis-
ira-straus)

wait more ... America caused ISIS : [http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-
created-al-qaeda-and-th...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-
qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881)

Clinton says Dick Cheney caused ISIS :
[http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Clinton-Cheney-Iraq-
ISIS/20...](http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Clinton-Cheney-Iraq-
ISIS/2014/06/27/id/579645/)

Kerry says Israel caused ISIS: [http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/whos-right-
kerry-believes-isi...](http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/whos-right-kerry-
believes-isis-recruitment-is-caused-by-palestinian-israeli-conflict-while-
singapores-lee-kuan-yew-believes-its-saudi-and-qatari-jihad-ideology/)

Wait ....

------
fecklessyouth
Then what is behind the rise of the Islamic State's recruiting, whose targets
aren't suffering any obvious economic strife?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/world/middleeast/from-
minn...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/world/middleeast/from-minneapolis-
to-isis-an-americans-path-to-jihad.html)

Modern liberalism offers no solution to the problem of evil. It assumes that
as long as your basic needs are met, and you're mentally sane, that you will
behave as a rational, non-violent person. It sees humans as essentially
materialist, subject to the same universal desires, which can all be met in
similar ways, and which are never distorted to any great degree. So it is
stumped by the sort of despair that such jihadists harbor in their hearts, for
according to its philosophical principles, such a thing should not be
possible.

~~~
danans
You statement assumes that everyone who joins/supports ISIS is evil or
brainwashed like the people in that article.

Imagine you are a resident of a town just captured by ISIS in Syria. Assuming
that they don't kill you immediately for being a Shia, Kurd, Christian or
Yazidi, how hard would it be for you to say no to supporting them, when the
alternative is death, or to flee to another place only to be forced into
destitution due to lack of economic opportunity.

No doubt ISIS seems to have a special capability to recruit people with
sociopathic desires, but any army marches on its stomach, and that requires
regular, non-evil people, to participate in the effort.

~~~
jules
This isn't about evil sociopaths, it's about people who are deluded about
what's good and evil. ISIS thinks they are doing good.

------
univalent
The simple counter-argument is that it is not the only driving factor. And
Piketty offers no real proof (by his very lofty standards) to show that this
is the principal contributing factor (which in itself would be huge). A more
interesting question is finding the 'catalyst(s)' that led to the rise of
ISIS.

------
bko
On the surface this explanation doesn't make sense. Is there a correlation
between extremists and countries with high income inequality? If so, provide
some evidence apart from cherry picking countries which happen to have high
inequality and other problems. Why aren't free democratic regimes which also
have high inequality equally plagued by these problems?

Also, energy prices have fallen dramatically, affecting the coffers of many
middle east governments. I don't know why he doesn't address this.

Maybe he addresses these issues in his actual research but it is missing from
every piece trying to link inequality to all societies ills.

~~~
ramason
He is not positing a general theory of income inequality and extremism merely
offering a hypothesis for recent extremism in the middle east. Saying "I think
X is the cause of Y in country Z" is not the same thing as saying X is always
the cause of Y in all countries all the time.

~~~
bko
If you can make causes conditional to one particular location, how is that a
good explanation? Are extremists more likely to be the poorest of society?
From what I read, this is not the case.

~~~
ramason
It happens all the time. Causes lead to different outcomes in different
environments. In biology for example poor diets lead to different diseases in
different parts of the world. Extremists _are_ more likely to be poor. Some
instigators may be well-off people doing it for whatever purposes, but your
rank and file, your average suicide bomber is more likely to be idle,
unemployed with nothing better to do

------
m0th87
Why should this be the "most controversial theory"? Have we already forgotten
what triggered the Arab Spring, and consequently the power vacuum that created
the IS?

The only thing off, as far as I can tell, is the remark that "economic
deprivation and the horrors of wars [...] benefited only a select few of the
region's residents." I'm not sure if this is the WP mis-reading Piketty, but
he makes it pretty clear in Capital that war benefits no one, especially the
super-rich. It's not like the Arab aristocracy were itching for multiple
revolutions that called into doubt the existing power structures.

~~~
bosdev
I think it can be traced well before the Arab Spring, to the (insane) policies
of the US government during the invasion of Iraq.

------
csomar
Given how awful inequality is in the Middle-East and seeing that the United
States is not really far (comparing for France for example), it just made me
realise how worse the situation is in the states.

------
Steko
The rise of ISIS is pretty simple, the power vacuum created by the destruction
of the Ba'athist Iraqi state and the subsequent withdrawal of US troops was
filled in Shi'a areas by Shiite militias and (largely Shiite) Iraqi government
forces, in Kurdish areas by the Peshmerga, and in the Sunni areas by the Sunni
militants who had been fighting the US troops. Lots of groups fought the US of
course, a number were wiped out to varying degrees. Because the US held an
overwhelming advantage in conventional firepower, the only groups with any
lasting "success" were the ones that embraced terrorism as their core of their
operations. When the Americans left the strongest of these groups -- ISI --
consolidated power and the destabilization in Syria created another power
vacuum which ISIS flowed into.

------
vinceguidry
I stopped reading as soon as he compared having few resources to living in
"conditions of semi-slavery". Slavery is the treatment of people as economic
goods to be bought and sold, full-stop. Having to work harder for a living
than others in wealthier areas is not slavery, it's not even close to slavery.
Not being able to leave your hometown because you can't afford a plane ticket
is not slavery. Not being free does not make you a slave.

I dismiss any purported economic argument as a political one when the arguer
makes this misrepresentation. You're not talking about how the world is
anymore, you're talking about how you want it to be.

------
jules
So in the Middle East the top 1% control 26.2% of the wealth (under a "high
inequality model"), and in the US the top 1% control 22.83% of the wealth.
Just 3.5% more and the US will turn into a medieval barbarism state.

When will people stop believing this crap. There is one variable that explains
a tremendous amount of human misery: surrender of the mind to a supreme
authority (human or god). Of course there are other important factors, but
when are we going to acknowledge the elephant in the room?

~~~
mercer
I don't think 'we' have trouble acknowledging your elephant.

Rather, simply pointing at the elephant smashing everything in the room of the
Middle East seems unproductive in light of the fact that we have such an
elephant in our very own room. Ours just happens to not be smashing things
currently.

It _did_ do so quite recently though (and rather more violently that ISIS),
and not just throughout our entire history, but the history of all of
humanity. The elephant is part of human nature.

Isn't it much more productive to look at the many underlying factors that
might cause elephants to go berserk, both external and internal to the human
individual, and then try to find solutions based on that?

Increased income equality might be such a factor, or it might not. But at
least it acknowledges _all_ the elephants in all the rooms, and offers a
possible way out. Pointing at the one elephant somewhere else does no such
thing, and is likely to enrage ours (in fact, it already seems rather
agitated).

Finally, I actually _do_ think that the increasing inequality and
centralization of power in the US _does_ significantly increase the chances of
a regression to a more 'medieval barbarism state'. It's just not happened yet.

------
transfire
And all those spanky new Toyota pick-ups. Uh huh.

~~~
ramason
Can you expand on this a little bit? What exactly are you trying to say?

~~~
e15ctr0n
Oct 6, 2015 - US Officials Ask How ISIS Got So Many Toyota Trucks
[http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-officials-isis-
toyota...](http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-officials-isis-toyota-
trucks/story?id=34266539)

~~~
ramason
But what does this have to do with inequality?

------
kobayashi
Calling for "far more education" does not at all address the inconvenient
facts that education in the Muslim Middle East is illiberal and will not
produce the same effects that increased education in a Western environment
will. See anything by Will McCants or Shadi Hamid for more info.

This is an economist's view of a non-economic problem.

------
beat
This misses the point entirely, I think. The problem isn't income inequality
so much as low income in general in that region. There is very little
opportunity. But low opportunity is coupled with generally high education and
literacy rates and a massive population boom. A young population, unemployed
intellectuals, and authoritarian government has _always_ led to revolution.
Always. It's human nature. It's happened at points in European history, and
it's happened in China and Japan and elsewhere.

As a musician, I play some middle eastern music and own several instruments
from the region. I have a doumbek (cast aluminum goblet drum) from the well-
known GEF in Egypt, and another from Syria. The difference in construction
quality is shocking. When showing the Syrian drum to people, I sometimes say
"You've heard about the precision industrial powerhouses of Syrian
manufacturing, right? No? Here's why." But what's even more shocking is the
difference in the quality of the "good" Egyptian drum versus pretty much any
instrument made in China or Indonesia these days - CNC-milled parts, quality
finishes, and tight construction rule in even the cheapest Asian
manufacturing.

Manufacturing in the Arab world, such as it is, is mostly trapped in the 19th
century, unable to escape craftsman roots. This is terribly inefficient and
unproductive. The Arab world is technologically incapable of manufacturing
complex devices like cars and surface-mount electronics. And it's not for lack
of educated people or a desire to do better. Other forces are at play here.

Revenue from raw resource extraction (oil) is just exploitation, and it's
time-locked. Sooner or later, oil fields run dry, and they'll be back where
they started, basically just agricultural communities. It's a shame, because
the region and cultures there have provided some of the most important
advances in history (like the number zero and algebra), and I'm sure it could
rise to that effectiveness again, given the right conditions.

But oil exploitation is good for both the local authoritarian regimes, and for
the western powers that run their economies on cheap Arab oil. That leads to a
massive militarization and government-level resistance to modernization and
advancement. It sucks. In a way, oil is the worst thing to happen to the
middle east.

And who has an answer? Clearly, the world of desert kingdoms and post-fascist
Baathist regimes is ripe for revolution. But the answers seem to be either go
forward, into the scary world of modern relatively peaceful democracy and
freedom, or backwards into the glory days of centuries ago. And the Islamic
fundamentalists who want to go backwards are strengthened by the general lack
of interest in the west for real democratization, and the preference for petty
regimes we can control from afar.

Sigh.

------
benevol
It's been clear for a very long time - what's needed is: Opportunities for
creation of wealth, access to health care and specifically _mental_ health
care and lots of education.

Next.

~~~
kobayashi
There is absolutely no credible, facts-driven research to suggest that lack of
wealth, access to health care, access to mental health care, or access to
education have a direct correlation to individuals joining terrorist groups or
the rise of such groups. It's just a common trope repeated because it fits
with people's existing ideologies. Terrorism is much more complicated than
that.

~~~
gte525u
That's a bit generalizing. This paper[1] talks about the over-representation
of engineers in violent Islamic organizations. Specifically talks about how
there are fewer engineers in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia versus Palestine and
other countries in the same type of groups. There seems to be /some/
correlation between economic opportunity and sub-segments of the population
joining these types of groups.

[1]
[http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/2007-10.pdf](http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/2007-10.pdf)

~~~
kobayashi
I can't read the paper now but I've read on that specific topic before. The
assertions were usually that people drawn to the clear-cut answers of
engineering also wanted to organize the world with definitive rights and
wrongs, and those 'black or white, no shades of grey' people are more likely
to agree with the zealotry of terrorist groups.

~~~
gte525u
Same paper - while monoism/simplism/preservatism argument is one of the three
major points the full paper. The rest is worth the time to read.

------
Albright
Wow. Talk about "when all you have is a hammer."

~~~
Bud
You didn't address his argument at all. Just an ad hominem.

Is that because you can't address it? Because his thesis seems quite
reasonable to me. And historically, we certainly know that societies with
extreme income inequality are less stable than those with more equality.

~~~
nostromo
I'll address the argument.

Lots of countries with high income inequality do not have a terrorism problem.

When is the last time Brazilians terrorists attacked New York and/or Paris?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality)

~~~
Mikeb85
There's over 50,000 violent deaths per year in Brazil. Not that the Paris
attacks weren't bad, but yes, Brazil suffers from violence due to inequality.

~~~
marknutter
Ok, then how about China.

~~~
Mikeb85
Believe it or not, China has significantly less inequality than Brazil (as
measured by the World Bank)... Not to mention a social net.

------
lsd5you
Here we go again.

Once the obvious cause (religion) has been eliminated, whatever remains,
however unlikely must be the truth.

Except the obvious has only been eliminated in his analysis because of a
dogmatic belief in human/religious/cultural equality (module disadvantages
caused by economics and western foreign policy).

------
duanesmithla79
Islamic State is about religion; not economics.

~~~
nickez
It's most definitely not about religion, these are mostly childish criminals
which are using religion as an excuse to commit even bigger crime.

------
littletimmy
While inequality may be ONE factor, it is definitely not THE factor. Much more
important are the factors of American imperialism, Islamic extremist ideology,
destabilization of Iraq, and so on.

What Piketty is right about, however, is that it is the policies of the West
is in part to blame for the extreme rise of inequality in the Arab world. That
said, I am not too certain Arabs would have fared better on their own.

~~~
Daishiman
No reasonable person would expect there to be a single factor. But some straw
_did_ break the camel's back.

~~~
thinkingkong
We need to start realizing that reality isnt a great headline. Making bold or
absolute claims _is_ a good way. Once we keep that in mind it makes these
conversations easier.

