236 of 267 people found the following review helpful
on 26 March 2014
The main argument: The unequal distribution of wealth in the developed world has become a significant issue in recent years. Indeed, the data indicate that in the past 30 years the incomes of the wealthiest have surged into the stratosphere (and the higher up in the income hierarchy one is, the greater the increase has been), while the incomes of the large majority have stagnated. This has led to a level of inequality in wealth in the developed world not seen since the eve of the Great Depression. This much is without dispute.
Where there is dispute is in trying to explain just why the rise in inequality has taken place (and whether, and to what degree, it will continue in the future); and, even more importantly, whether it is justified. These questions are not merely academic, for the way in which we answer them informs public debate as well as policy measures--and also influences more violent reactions. Indeed, we need look no further than the recent Occupy Movement to see that the issue of increasing inequality is not only pressing, but potentially incendiary.
Given the import and the polarizing nature of the issue of inequality, it is all the more crucial that we begin by way of shedding as much light on the situation as possible. This is the impetus behind Thomas Piketty's new book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
One of Piketty's main concerns in the book is to put the issue of inequality in its broader historical context. Specifically, the author traces how inequality has evolved from the agrarian societies of the 18th and early 19th centuries; through the Industrial Revolution and up to the First World War; throughout the interwar years; and into the second half of the twentieth century (and up to the first part of the twenty-first).
With this broad historical context we are able to see much more clearly the causes of inequality. As we might expect, what we find is that inequality is influenced by a host of societal factors--including economic, political, social and cultural factors. However, what we also find is that inequality is influenced by a broader set of factors associated with how capital works in capitalist societies (and market economies more generally).
Specifically, we find that capital (and the wealth it generates) tends to accumulate faster than the rate of economic growth in capitalist societies. What this means is that capital tends to become an increasingly prevalent and influential factor in these societies (at least up to a point). What's more, wealth not only tends to accumulate, but to become more and more concentrated at the top (mainly because those with more capital are able to earn a higher rate of return on their capital investments). For these reasons, capitalism on its own tends to produce a relatively high degree of inequality.
The natural tendency of capital to accumulate and to become ever more concentrated largely explains the high degree of inequality that was witnessed in the developed world in the early part of the twentieth century. This inequality was largely dashed, however, in the interwar years. The reason for this is that the major events of the first half of the twentieth century (including the two world wars, and the Great Depression) thwarted capital's natural tendency to accumulate, and also destroyed large stocks of wealth. The end result was that by the time World War II was over, inequality in the developed world had reached an all-time low.
After the Second World War, the natural tendency of capital to accumulate resumed. However, various political and economic measures (including progressive taxation, rent control, increasing minimum wages, and expanded social programs) worked to redistribute this growing capital, thus preventing inequality from growing as quickly as it would have otherwise.
In the 1980s, though, the developed countries did an about-face, and began eliminating many of the measures that had prevented inequality from rising according to its natural tendency. The consequence was that inequality reasserted itself in a major way, such that it is nearly as extreme today as it was on the run up to the Great Depression. Furthermore, the historical evidence indicates that capital will likely continue to accumulate and become ever more concentrated, such that we will witness an even greater level of inequality moving forward.
As far as justifying the growing inequality that we are currently seeing, Piketty raises serious doubts as to whether it may rightly be considered fair. What's more, as inequality continues to grow, it is increasingly likely that large parts of the population will also come to see it as unfair and unjustified--thereby increasing the likelihood of political opposition.
For Piketty, the best and fairest solution to these problems would be to steepen the progressive taxation applied to the wealthiest individuals. The problem, though, is that in a world of financial globalization (where there is a high degree of competition for capital--as witnessed by tax havens), it is extremely difficult to apply the appropriate tax scheme without the cooperation and coordinated efforts of the international community--and this is simply not something that is easy to achieve.
The alternative, however, is much more troubling for it is likely that it will involve reverting to protectionism and nationalism--and this is really in no one's interest.
This book is an absolute tour-de-force. The broad time-frame that Piketty explores, and the enormous body of data that he brings together, makes this study extremely comprehensive (no one will even think of accusing Piketty of cherry picking the data). Also, the reader is struck by how dispassionately Piketty analyzes the evidence he brings to the table. Indeed, while the author does have a position on inequality, one never receives the impression that this is corrupting his analysis (I consider myself to be a pragmatist politically, and often find that writers on both the left and the right massage the truth, but that was never the case here). Finally, it should be said that the book is very long, and just as dense, with the author often delving into extreme detail, so be prepared for a challenge. A must read for anyone with a serious interest in economics.
270 of 323 people found the following review helpful
on 12 May 2014
Thomas Picketty offers the disclaimer that his book is ‘as much a work of history as of economics’ (p33) which he then goes on to prove. He introduces his 2 core economic equations and asks readers not well versed in mathematics not to immediately close the book. It is in fact readers who are well versed in mathematics who might well close the book, since his equations make no sense and cannot bear the weight of interpretation he places on them throughout the book. They are core to his argument, but they fail. He nowhere derives them, proves them, or empirically tests them. He merely states them.
According to Picketty, the ‘first fundamental law of capitalism’ (p52) is that α=rxβ where α is the share of capital in national income, r is the rate of return on capital, and β is Picketty’s capital/income ratio. This is a simple identity, is no more than telling us that a/b x b = a. Picketty admits this identity and tautology but nevertheless insists that this is the ‘first fundamental law of capitalism’, a claim he simply cannot justify. His ‘second fundamental law of capitalism’ (p166) is that β=s/g where s is the savings rate and g the growth rate. His example claims that a savings rate of 12% and a growth rate of 2% give a capital/income ratio of 600%. This is simply untrue. A simple spreadsheet taking 100 units of GDP growing in row 1 at 2%/year, showing 12% saving of that GDP in row 2, cumulating that in row 3 and dividing the result by row 1 to give Picketty’s capital/income ratio in row 4, shows that it becomes 600% only in year 199. Not only does this ‘fundamental law’ take so long to be true, as Picketty admits, but it is only true in that year and thereafter continues to grow, contrary to his claim that it reaches a long term equilibrium. His third equation is his claim that r>g drives capital accumulation. r and g are however measures in different units, r is a scalar ratio, whereas g is a first differential over time. Equations and inequalities require variables on each side to be in the same units. Picketty’s comparison of the return to capital and the growth rate are like comparing one person’s height to another person’s weight. His model is bogus.
He then conflates capital and wealth (‘I use the words ‘capital’ and ‘wealth’ interchangeably’ (p47)). This obscures more than it elucidates. Capital traditionally defined in economics is the means of production. It is an input to the economic process. Wealth by contrast is an output. We might very well care differently about how much capital and wealth we have, and who owns them. More effective capital may drive up output, whilst more wealth has no creative function and attracts a moral question. Picketty is wrong, analytically and morally, to confuse the two in one measure.
Picketty is disparaging in very short measure of Marx (p227-230), Keynes (p220), mathematical economics (p32), and economists generally (p296, 437, 514, 573, 574). Only Picketty has it right (p232). He quotes Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac, more than he does either Marx or Keynes. His book is unnecessarily long and a tedious read, due to its rambling repetitive style. It could have been far more concise.
His main point is however well taken. Ownership of wealth has become increasingly unequal. His remedy is a global progressive tax on capital. By this he means all capital. But he doesn’t say what effect a progressive tax on each form of capital would have, how it would be paid, and what should be done with the payment. Would companies owning productive assets have to hand factories to the state? Or to the poor? Would house owners have to sell their houses, or shareholders their shares, in which case would their price be sustained? Or is he assuming asset owners also have income to pay the capital tax, in which case it becomes an income tax? And what’s the point? The purpose Picketty tells us on page 518 is ‘to regulate capitalism’ and thereby to ‘avoid crises’. But he doesn’t tell us how capitalism would be thereby made more acceptable or how crises would be avoided. He also admits it will never happen!
Whilst I agree with Picketty that extremes of income and wealth are morally repugnant, my complaint is that i) he should do more to investigate and attack the processes which allow this outcome, for example regulating the software market more effectively to avoid Bill Gates becoming obscenely wealthy based on Microsoft’s extreme and unjustified monopoly rate of profit, whilst also regulating natural resource markets to avoid billionaire build up there, ii) this is not in fact the major issue facing capitalism today. Far more important is the lack of effective macroeconomic demand and the fall in real wages caused by the high productivity of automation technology. For this a citizen’s income funded by QE (ie without being added to government debt) is the only and the urgently needed solution. Maybe we could compromise and use the proceeds of Picketty’s capital tax to fund a world citizen income. He clearly has a very good PR machine promoting his book – see the low votes attached to any critical review on Amazon, a fate very likely to meet this review!
Author ‘A Managerial Philosophy of Technology : Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis’
Inequality is a sensitive subject with extreme views on both sides of the argument, but what do we really know about how wealth and inequality comes about and what can we do to fix the problem? Unfortunately economics has a bad reputation for "abundance of prejudice and a paucity of fact" as the author puts it. This is especially bad when you take in to account politicians rely on economists to tell them how to run the country. This book tries to address the problem by using actual data like tax returns to try and get to the heart of the problem.
A major point is that inequality is increasing and has been for a long time, the decline in inequality in the 20 century was a result of the shock to society of two world wars (e.g destruction of property, inflation, bankruptcy)
"In fact, all the historical data at our disposal today indicate that it was not until the second half-- or even the final third-- of the nineteenth century that a significant rise in the purchasing power of wages occurred. From the first to the sixth decade of the nineteenth century, workers' wages stagnated at very low levels-- close or even inferior to the levels of the eighteenth and previous centuries."
"This long phase of wage stagnation, which we observe in Britain as well as France, stands out all the more because economic growth was accelerating in this period. The capital share of national income-- industrial profits, land rents, and building rents --insofar as can be estimated with the imperfect sources available today, increased considerably in both countries in the first half of the nineteenth century."
"It would decrease slightly in the final decades of the nineteenth century, as wages partly caught up with growth. The data we have assembled nevertheless reveal no structural decrease in inequality prior to World War I. What we see in the period 1870- 1914 is at best a stabilization of inequality at an extremely high level, and in certain respects an endless inegalitarian spiral, marked in particular by increasing concentration of wealth. It is quite difficult to say where this trajectory would have led without the major economic and political shocks initiated by the war. With the aid of historical analysis and a little perspective, we can now see those shocks as the only forces since the Industrial Revolution powerful enough to reduce inequality."
"In any case, capital prospered in the 1840s and industrial profits grew, while labour incomes stagnated. This was obvious to everyone, even though in those days aggregate national statistics did not yet exist. It was in this context that the first communist and socialist movements developed. The central argument was simple: What was the good of industrial development, what was the good of all the technological innovations, toil, and population movements if, after half a century of industrial growth, the condition of the masses was still just as miserable as before, and all lawmakers could do was prohibit factory labour by children under the age of eight? The bankruptcy of the existing economic and political system seemed obvious. People therefore wondered about its long-term evolution: what could one say about it?"
Karl Marx's prediction of an apocalyptic end to capitalism was based on the tendency for capital to accumulate and become concentrated in ever fewer hands, with no natural limit to the process. "either the rate of return on capital would steadily diminish (thereby killing the engine of accumulation and leading to violent conflict among capitalists), or capital's share of national income would increase indefinitely (which sooner or later would unite the workers in revolt). In either case, no stable socioeconomic or political equilibrium was possible."
But Marx's apocalypse did not happen "In the last third of the nineteenth century, wages finally began to increase: the improvement in the purchasing power of workers spread everywhere, and this changed the situation radically, even if extreme inequalities persisted and in some respects continued to increase until World War I. The communist revolution did indeed take place, but in the most backward country in Europe, Russia, where the Industrial Revolution had scarcely begun, whereas the most advanced European countries explored other, social democratic avenues-- fortunately for their citizens. Like his predecessors, Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress, steadily increasing productivity and diffusion of knowledge, which is a force that can to some extent serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of private capital."
The next major point is when the return rate on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income ( as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first) it means that people that own capital profit more than people that sell their labour thus inequality rises between owners of capital and people that rely on labour to earn a living.
The wars also effected inheritance. Individuals who should have inherited fortunes in 1950- 1960 did not inherit much because their parents had not had time to recover from the shocks of the previous decades and died without much wealth to their names. The low point was in the 1970s: inherited capital accounted for just over 40 percent of total private capital. For the first time in history (except in new countries), wealth accumulated in the lifetime of the living constituted the majority of all wealth: nearly 60 percent. But now the share of inherited wealth in total wealth has grown steadily since the 1970s. Inherited wealth once again accounted for the majority of wealth in the 1980s, and according to the latest available figures it represents roughly two-thirds of private capital in France in 2010, compared with barely one-third of capital accumulated from savings. If current trends continue, the share of inherited wealth will continue to grow in the decades to come, surpassing 70 percent by 2020 and approaching 80 percent in the 2030s.
Since the 1980s there has been a massive increase in inequality coming from labour. This comes mainly from top managers of firms giving themselves massive pay rises (60 to 70 percent, depending on what definitions one chooses) of the top 0.1 percent of the income hierarchy in 2000- 2010 consists of top managers. By comparison, athletes, actors, and artists of all kinds make up less than 5 percent)
"One possible explanation of this is that the skills and productivity of these top managers rose suddenly in relation to those of other workers. Another explanation, which to me seems more plausible and turns out to be much more consistent with the evidence, is that these top managers by and large have the power to set their own remuneration, in some cases without limit and in many cases without any clear relation to their individual productivity."
The process by which wealth is accumulated and distributed contains powerful forces pushing toward inequality but forces of equality also exist, and in certain countries at certain times, these may prevail, but the forces of inequality can at any point regain the upper hand, as seems to be happening now.
Inequality in the USA and Europe is covered, how the histories of those countries effected capital and inequality, e.g early America had less inherited wealth than Europe, ownership of land was cheap and there was slavery. Other subjects covered are public wealth transferred to private hands (e.g privatization and oligarchs), public dept creating private wealth and many other related topics.
The theory of a stable capital-labour split (itself based on data only going back no further than 1950, thus missing the interwar period and early twentieth century) and thus flawed is now out of date thanks to studies of the 1970s showing a significant increase in the share of national income in the rich countries going to profits and capital and less going to wages and labour.
"The emergence of a patrimonial middle class was an important event. To be sure, wealth is still extremely concentrated today: the upper decile own 60 percent of Europe's wealth and more than 70 percent in the United States. 20 And the poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 percent of total wealth in 2010, just as in 1910. Basically, all the middle class managed to get its hands on was a few crumbs: scarcely more than a third of Europe's wealth and barely a quarter in the United States . This middle group has four times as many members as the top decile yet only one-half to one-third as much wealth. It is tempting to conclude that nothing has really changed: inequalities in the ownership of capital are still extreme"
What is the solution to this problem? The author suggest a global progressive tax on capital but he admits this would be very hard to implement. "The primary purpose of the capital tax is not to finance the social state but to regulate capitalism. The goal is first to stop the indefinite increase of inequality of wealth, and second to impose effective regulation on the financial and banking system in order to avoid crises. To achieve these two ends, the capital tax must first promote democratic and financial transparency: there should be clarity about who owns what assets around the world. Without a global tax on capital or some similar policy, there is a substantial risk that the top centile's share of global wealth will continue to grow indefinitely-- and this should worry everyone. In any case, truly democratic debate cannot proceed without reliable statistics."
This book has been getting rave reviews and what its states is going to upset a lot of people. It is good to see such detailed long term trend analysis based on data.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on 11 February 2015
I'm studying A-level economics and although obviously not an easy read, it was worth it. Not only did I learn a few things, it really stemmed my interested in economics and the social sciences. Definitely worth a read.
on 12 March 2015
The facts, the analysis, the conclusions all point to the inevitability of the increasing growth of capital and its claim on real goods and services in the hands and control of a minority of the population in western capitalist countries in particular but including analysis of Japan's experience. The logic points to either collapse of the capitalist system when the majority recognises the problem of their impoverishment vis-a-vis the capital owning class, (who remain few in number and beyond the taxing ability of governments who might have some wish to serve the majority population), and make the revolution themselves or who will stand silently by and watch the system's continuation as advocated by the New World Order who seek to sustain this trend bycurtailing civil liberties and suppressing alternative views of how to organise and manage an economy with a different vision and outcome for"a good society".
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
on 28 October 2014
You don't need to be an Economist to appreciate this book. The explanations at theoretical level are very clear. Many of the findings are based on strong data tracked in some cases for over 200 years (UK and France for example). Fascinating read on data related to shares of national income whether derived from labour or from capital which high-light the levels of wealth inequality in many countries where good data exists as well as the trends and consistency in levels of inequality. The data provides interesting predictive insights. Only slight criticism would be that the text is sometimes too repetitive.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
on 23 September 2014
Don’t be misled by this flawed masterpiece.
Piketty’s masterly work on Capital is an important and influential book. Among other things, it provides much of the theoretical framework for François Hollande’s socialist economic policies in France, make of that what you will. It should be noted from the start that the author is not only a distinguished professor of economics at the Sorbonne, but also an out-and-out socialist. What may well be rigorous economic analysis is laced heavily throughout with leftish assumptions that many people will not share, but which Piketty makes little attempt to justify or discuss.
Although his title is ‘Capital in the twenty-first century’, Piketty’s actual subject is the inequality and injustice of wealth distribution. Such injustice is as old as the hills. In a famous biblical passage quoted by George Orwell, the ancient preacher says “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race goes not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither bread to the hungry, nor yet riches to the wise…, but time and chance happeneth to all”. Piketty clearly finds time and chance upsetting and the accumulation of capital intolerable. After a long survey of economic history, he announces his own solution to the problem, one which most people will find hopelessly unworkable -a steeply rising global tax on wealth.
I am not personally qualified to comment on the validity of the economics in the book, except to note that it has been strongly criticised by other economists, notably by James Galbraith at Texas, and in the Financial Times. So I restrict my remarks to commenting on the readability of this very long work (577 pages of text plus another 80-odd of notes), and a few comments where it seems to me there are major deficiencies or unjustified assumptions that can be appreciated by a general reader.
The first thing to say is that this is a delightfully written (and well translated) work of breath-taking historical sweep, covering the economic landscape from mediaeval times onwards, and with special reference to the last 200 years or so. Piketty assembles huge amounts of data for consideration and illustrates what this can mean in human terms by references to the novels of Jane Austen, Balzac and Tolstoy. It is all very seductive, though he is not above selecting unsavoury but entirely fictional characters to rouse our ire against capitalism in general. This is not particularly helpful, for anybody can choose or create a fictional villain to reinforce their argument, but it doesn’t make it true. Also, one has to be careful about emotionally loaded language. Steeply rising taxes are described as ‘progressive’, technically correct but misleadingly reassuring; the ‘inequality’ he speaks of would be more accurately described as ‘difference’, ‘divergence’ or ‘diversity’; and where ‘inequality’, as he measures it, gets smaller for a while (which goes against his argument that things are getting worse), he shies away from the obvious word ‘reduced’ and describes it instead as ‘compressed’, which implies intensification rather than the reduction that has actually happened. But he is pretty good about explaining technical terms as he goes along. Where he doesn’t, the effect can be comical, as on page 406 where the word ‘cohorts’ appears ten times, conjuring up visions of Roman legions tramping through the pages. But it turns out that ‘cohort’ is the technical statistical term for a group of people born within the same period of time. You live and learn.
There is no escaping, of course, the fact that this is not a bedtime book, or something you pick up at the airport to flip through during the flight. It is solid stuff, and a determined reader will probably take a month or six weeks of dedicated effort to get through it, for it can only be tackled bit at a time. The extensive tables of data are fascinating and the graphs enlightening, but if data bores you and graphs make you feel ill, this isn’t your book. Likewise the maths that is presented is not at all difficult but might be horribly unfamiliar. If symbolic notation, Greek letters and a little light algebra aren’t your thing, best put this book aside before you buy it. Many people only realize afterwards, and a survey of Kindle statistics apparently indicates that most people give up round page 26.
For his analysis, conclusions and final recommendation, Piketty relies heavily on what he calls the first and second fundamental laws of capitalism. These are not like the first and second laws of thermodynamics, for example, to which no exception has ever been found; and not like a statute passed in parliament; nor even like Newton’s law of gravity, which has now been superseded by Einstein but which is still good enough for little everyday tasks like calculating the weight of the earth, or sending a mission to the moon. The first law of capital is not in fact a law at all, simply an identity, a way of rearranging quantities that are already known. The second ‘law’ relates the capital/income ratio of a country with the ratio of the savings rate to the growth rate of the economy in general. This is not a law either, but rather a tendency which takes decades to come about, and then only provided that nothing else intervenes (though it always does -natural disasters, wars, depressions, property bubbles, banking crises etc.). He describes the developing economic scene of the last two centuries in terms of these ‘laws’, and also adduces that the accumulation of capital will become more and more concentrated in a few hands when the percentage return on capital persists at a higher level than the growth rate of the economy in general. He sees this as a nightmare scenario of runaway inequality, and reserves his most particular criticism for inherited wealth.
Piketty’s grand idea to deal with this situation is a steeply increasing tax, not just on income or on inheritance, but on all one’s assets, every year, a “Global Tax on Capital”, with all the associated paraphernalia of enforcement. This includes having all one’s personal financial details automatically disclosed, and not just to one’s own government; given the international nature of capital flows, the information has to be available to every government in the world. It requires setting up a global financial authority with powers to coerce and to enforce the compliance of institutions (City of London? Swiss banks?) or countries (tax havens? oil states?) that take a different political outlook from Piketty. This will ensure democracy. Europe should lead the way with the creation of a new body, the European Budgetary Parliament.
He also touches on some other current issues, such as the recent phenomenon of stratospheric senior-management salaries. He examines the disaster of the Euro, and how governments enmeshed by it might reduce their catastrophic debt burden now that the traditional remedy of currency devaluation is no longer available to them. Piketty’s answer to this is again a heavy tax on the relatively wealthy. But unmanageable government debt is mainly caused by the inefficiency, irresponsibility, or downright corruption of the government concerned. To give such a government even more power through money taken away from people who obviously manage it rather successfully, is an unconvincing recommendation.
What are we to make of all this? Some respected professional economists have hammered Piketty pretty hard, saying the both the analysis and the conclusions are flawed. One of the objections turns on Piketty’s use of the term ‘Capital’ to lump together such diverse things as investment in plant and machinery (which depreciate at a rapid rate), real estate including one’s home, (which tends to accumulate in the long term) and financial assets (which can be widely volatile). As for the concept of a confiscatory tax on capital, everyone will recognise the truth of the comment by John Bird (founder of “The Big Issue” ) that capital will simply move somewhere else; Galbraith makes the same point rather more acidly; and in France, Gérard Depardieu has proved it by voting with his feet.
So what has one gained on reaching page 577? The first answer must be ‘quite an education’. Unless you are a professional economist of independent outlook, you are unlikely to emerge unchanged from the experience. Whether you agree with Piketty or not, the mass of factual data presented is overwhelming, valuable and instructive. It often serves to put things in perspective. A single example: public and politicians are currently preoccupied with the level of benefit payments made to the less well off, but this amounts to only about 1% of national income in developed countries, compared with 10-20% on health and education, and typically 13% on pensions. This means it is not significant as a purely economic problem.
It is a pity that Piketty does not apply this self-same approach to what he calls ‘inequality’. He is outraged by the spectacular wealth of the top 1/1000th of a percent of the population, but one thousandth of one percent, even of something spectacular, does not add up to a large amount of the economy as a whole. Even if the threshold limits are extended downwards, he estimates it will only bring in about 3-4% of national revenue. Unfortunately he is probably wrong about that. Once governments discover a principle and a mechanism to collect a new tax, they will find it hard to resist the temptation to extend both the rate and the scope of it. That is what governments do.
Surprisingly, he is not explicitly concerned about the power that extreme wealth can bring. He reserves special bile for Liliane Bettencourt, the l’Oréal heiress who, he admits, takes no part in the running of the company. But he does not mention Rupert Murdoch, for example, whose News Corporation empire has considerable influence on governments and elections. This is presumably because of Piketty’s ingrained dislike of capital per se.
Piketty is an out-and-out socialist. He does not just write about capitalism, he detests it. That comes out in many side-swipes. “The rentier is the enemy of democracy”; “Democracy must regain control over capitalism” (though it never had it). Most tellingly, his historical survey never once mentions the positive aspects of capitalism; the rôle of credit, of lending money at interest, the invention of the joint stock company and so on, in liberating civilisation from a subsistence economy, creating jobs and increasing general wealth and well-being. He explicitly admits that his wealth tax is for doctrinaire reasons -not to fund the spending needs of government, but to control capitalism.
The reader is left with many practical and philosophical questions. What exactly does Piketty see as ‘equality’? He doesn’t discuss it at all. How much in-equality is acceptable, for there will always be some? How can a civilized man possibly maintain that “unequal wealth within a nation is surely more worrisome than unequal wealth between nations” when one considers the desperate plight of the poorest in the world? How much does inequality act as a driver for the enhancement of wealth generally -is there an entropy effect? What is so bad about someone working hard in order to leave something to their children and so increase social mobility? Is inherited wealth fundamentally more reprehensible than inherited intelligence, which also affects one’s personal economic outcome? Is Piketty’s view of meritocracy perhaps a little self-serving? Is it naïve to advocate massive expansion of the social state while trusting that the organizational problems will be overcome by “efficient re-design, or structures not yet invented”? Is he serious when he suggests that the state’s largesse might extend to culture and travel? (free tickets to Bayreuth? rock festivals? football matches? free petrol? cheap flights to Ibiza?). What is the moral justification for the state confiscating large proportions (up to 80% marginal) of private property? On this last issue, Piketty’s vague appeals to 18th century declarations of equality, made in a context where there was no publicly funded education, health care, unemployment benefit and so on, carry little more conviction than the American gun lobby’s claim to be justified by that country’s founding constitution. Understand that I am by no means defending the manifest abuses perpetrated by some aspects of capitalism, simply questioning whether Piketty’s proposals could have any beneficial effect, or whether they might even distract from the search for better solutions.
Finally the biggest question of all. Does Piketty actually believe in his own proposals? Well, not whole-heartedly at least. He describes them as “Utopian…… but no more so than creating a stateless currency like the Euro”. Enough said.
on 19 May 2015
I've got left the last 200 pages left to read but this book is really an eye-opener and gives you an insight into the historical dynamics of inequality as early as late 1600s till 2012. Much has been written on this book so I don't need to give you more reasons to buy it or not. This book is well written and it is consistent with other Authors' views on the origin and the detrimental effects of inequalities on the 99% of us (see for instance Danny Dorling's "Inequality and the 1%"). I of course recommend it but please note that it is about 600 pages long: no one has ever said that knowledge comes easy.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on 10 January 2015
A comprehensive, clear and informative read. Bought for my son at AS level to further inform his studies. Impressive, well written and clearly a passion/dedication of the writer.
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful
on 17 November 2014
It was with some trepidation that I decided to read this quite weighty book on economics. However I needn't have worried, for the technical content of this book is very low. What you do get however is an interesting tour of economic history, and it looks like quite a lot of research has been done by Piketty and his students to analyse current trends against a much longer and broader backdrop. This is really interesting, and the strong point of this book is the analysis of historic trends.
Where the book slightly falls down is when it comes remedying growing inequality, namely to tax capital. So this is really two books in one. The second half of the book makes the case for a capital tax, and I am mostly convinced, in the sense that it seems to be the least bad option. Piketty is actually very fair, in that he concedes that inequality and incentives for entrepreneurship are absolutely essential, but if left unfettered, the degree of inequality would inevitably rise to unacceptable levels. He reaches this conclusion based on historic data, and I for one shudder at the prospect of a return to pre-war inequality and poverty. Piketty is also very fair in savaging (politely of course) the work of other economists who simply cherry-pick data to back up their theories.
I hear it argued from various directions that the effect of any form of tax will be to reduce an activity, namely to hurt entrepreneurship, but I think such criticisms are based largely on dogma and self-interest, rather than to take a cold hard look at the data. Data from other directions suggests that counties with more equality tend to do better (in things that matter, i.e. quality of life, family, education, health, longevity etc.) I digress.
Apart from being very repetitive at times, this book left me with an uneasy feeling about just how subjective economics and social science actually are. The certainly with which social scientists present subjective opinion leaves me very uneasy indeed. As a layman, it's hard to separate fact from opinion. This book is wonderful when it presents facts, but weaker when it presents conjecture.