Customer Review

164 of 196 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Correct about inequality but poor economics, 12 May 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Hardcover)
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!

Geoff Crocker
Author ‘A Managerial Philosophy of Technology : Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis’
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 3 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 75 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 14 May 2014 13:49:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 May 2014 13:50:28 BDT
M. Reid says:
"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."

I particularly liked this part of your review. I'm only about half way through the book at the minute (so I'll try not to comment at length quite yet), but I'm just failing to take anything from it - and I read a lot of economics books. There's very little in reference to the philosophies of other economists, the sheer amount of stats obfuscates the message to the point that I just have take his word for the conclusions, and as you say there are a lot of references to fictional literature (as sources!). I just can't understand what the attraction to this book is which has made it a best seller. Maybe it's because it's one of the few intellectual economic books that can provide a bit of confirmation bias to the Left in calling for wealth seizures.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2014 17:27:16 BDT
Thanks and look forward to your further comments when you've read it all

Posted on 27 May 2014 19:49:31 BDT
Phil Symmons says:
Dear Mr (Dr?) Crowther,
You have made much the same points as I have made about the "Laws" of capitalism and r/g. I wrote my review before reading yours so it is not plagiarism but (great?) minds thinking alike. What I fail to understand is why these gross errors have been overlooked. They do not as you imply, affect Piketty's main thesis. What they do is undermine his credibility as a scientist. How can Piketty be regarded as a great thinker and "Capital" as the great economic thesis of the Century? I gather he has been called as an advisor to Obama; he is due to give a lecture promoted by LSE and so on. If I wished to discredit Piketty's main thesis as many do, I would cite the conceptual howlers and Piketty would be laughed out of court. I find it difficult to decide whether Piketty is careless or just dim. He says Figs 2.2 and 2.4 are bell curves when clearly neither are even remotely bell shaped. This is a subheading so it can't be an error. Not important except for what it implies about Piketty. I am at a total loss to understand the importance attached to this book.
At least your review has my vote.
Phil Symmons

In reply to an earlier post on 27 May 2014 20:49:46 BDT
Thanks and agreed. I read your review and also agree. You might like my book?
Geoff

Posted on 1 Jun 2014 15:15:31 BDT
Someone Else says:
Thanks for the helpful review. I agree that the first fundamental law TP describes is just an identity and the second doesn't look very fundamental (or even correct!)
However, I was just after a bit of clarification regarding your criticism of the r>g inequality. In what way are these figures incomparable? r is the rate of return on capital, and g is the economic growth rate. These are both first differentials over time surely (units being $ per year)?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2014 16:42:01 BDT
Thanks. I take r to be the ratio of 2 scalars, ie profit divided by capital employed, like ROCE, and not a first differential over time like g, hence their incompatibility?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2014 12:06:53 BDT
hfffoman says:
g is usually expressed as an annual percentage increase rather than a derivative. As profit is an annual amount which serves to increase capital, return on capital is also an annual percentage increase. The two are compatible.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2014 19:48:25 BDT
I agree g is not a derivative. It's a differential over time. Its units are % per annum. r is a static rate of return on capital. Its units are % (ie not over time, not % per annum). So the two measures are incompatible in their units and cannot appear on either side of an equation or inequality.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2014 20:00:13 BDT
hfffoman says:
I am amazed that you have made your point so confidently when you are mistaken about something so basic. Return on capital, just like growth, is measured against unit time. Annual return on capital is roughly 12 x monthly return on capital, in just the same way that annual growth is roughly 12 x monthly growth. The two are compatible.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2014 21:00:42 BDT
We each think the other is mistaken. There's no point in being amazed at this. Return on capital is measured within one time period and its units are simply % in that time period. Growth is measured between time periods. Its units are % between two time periods. It's a first differential over time. Their units are different and they are not compatible.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next ›

Review Details

Item

4.1 out of 5 stars (104 customer reviews)
5 star:
 (59)
4 star:
 (17)
3 star:
 (14)
2 star:
 (4)
1 star:
 (10)
 
 
 
£29.95 £14.98
Add to basket Add to wishlist
Reviewer


Location: Bristol UK

Top Reviewer Ranking: 1,288