Tuesday

Thomas Piketty’s “Capital”, summarised in four paragraphs



Source:The Economist Newspaper 

IT IS the economics book taking the world by storm. "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", written by the French economist Thomas Piketty, was published in French last year and in English in March of this year. The English version quickly became an unlikely bestseller, and it has prompted a broad and energetic debate on the book’s subject: the outlook for global inequality. Some reckon it heralds or may itself cause a pronounced shift in the focus of economic policy, toward distributional questions. This newspaper has hailed Mr Piketty as "the modern Marx" (Karl, that is). But what’s it all about?

"Capital" is built on more than a decade of research by Mr Piketty and a handful of other economists, detailing historical changes in the concentration of income and wealth. This pile of data allows Mr Piketty to sketch out the evolution of inequality since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In the 18th and 19th centuries western European society was highly unequal. Private wealth dwarfed national income and was concentrated in the hands of the rich families who sat atop a relatively rigid class structure. This system persisted even as industrialization slowly contributed to rising wages for workers. Only the chaos of the first and second world wars and the Depression disrupted this pattern. High taxes, inflation, bankruptcies, and the growth of sprawling welfare states caused wealth to shrink dramatically, and ushered in a period in which both income and wealth were distributed in relatively egalitarian fashion. But the shocks of the early 20th century have faded and wealth is now reasserting itself. On many measures, Mr Piketty reckons, the importance of wealth in modern economies is approaching levels last seen before the first world war.

From this history, Mr Piketty derives a grand theory of capital and inequality. As a general rule wealth grows faster than economic output, he explains, a concept he captures in the expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate). Other things being equal, faster economic growth will diminish the importance of wealth in a society, whereas slower growth will increase it (and demographic change that slows global growth will make capital more dominant). But there are no natural forces pushing against the steady concentration of wealth. Only a burst of rapid growth (from technological progress or rising population) or government intervention can be counted on to keep economies from returning to the “patrimonial capitalism” that worried Karl Marx. Mr Piketty closes the book by recommending that governments step in now, by adopting a global tax on wealth, to prevent soaring inequality contributing to economic or political instability down the road.

The book has unsurprisingly attracted plenty of criticism. Some wonder whether Mr Piketty is right to think the future will look like the past. Theory argues that it should become ever harder to earn a good return on wealth the more there is of it. And today’s super-rich mostly come by their wealth through work, rather than via inheritance. Others argue that Mr Piketty’s policy recommendations are more ideologically than economically driven and could do more harm than good. But many of the sceptics nonetheless have kind words for the book’s contributions, in terms of data and analysis. Whether or not Mr Piketty succeeds in changing policy, he will have influenced the way thousands of readers and plenty of economists think about these issues.

Related Links:

The World Top Incomes Database

Thomas Piketty: A plan for a working and democratic eurozone (translation)

Taking On Adam Smith (and Karl Marx)

Our manifesto for Europe

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Piketty is dead wrong,
totally irrelevant.


It is totally irrelevant, who has capital.


If they're rich that's ok, it's not my problem at all.


Other things are problems, great problems:


(Capital doesn't matter at all, if:)


1) Everybody has right to study,
to have own intellectual capital.


That is main problem,
not concentration of capital.


2) Everybody has right to work,
to earn own financial capital.


It will happen automatically,
if number 2 is in force.


3) Everybody has right to accumulate capital,
to him/her-self be a capitalist.


That will follow also automatically,
if number 3 is in force.


4) Everybody has freedom to make those changes in 1-3.


That is the problem of society:
that everybody has not an opportunity in society.


Especially under 18-year everybody
should have opportunities.


Then responsibilities,
over 18.


We cannot help somebody who is addicted to drugs, if he/she chooses to be in drugs.


There will not be heaven on the earth.


But Piketty is making a great mistake:


Rich people all all the time losing their riches and power is slipping from the hands of powerful.


That's good news for Piketty:


Don't worry.


The crown will not pass to second and third generation.


There'll be problems.


And new powers will always rise.


And all the economical riches will also be slippery and in the danger of perdition all the time.


It is zero problem that some people are rich,
and capital is more productive than labor.


That is the hope of man,
so everybody should have only:


Opportunities to number 1-4,
and nothing else.


And they can build a decent life to themselves.

Be a capitalist of 21-century.


That's only hope on decent man:


To have a house to be a home
(it is preferred to rent housing, it is return of investment)


To have a car to kids (it is return of investment in relation to bike).


To have "a hammer to work":
have return of investment in hammer in his or her work.


We only need opportunities,
not envy of academics.

TP said...

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.