Capital in the Twenty

Transcription

Capital
p
in the Twenty-First
y
Centuryy
von Thomas Piketty
Gebundene
G
b d
A
Ausgabe:
b 685 S
Seiten
it
Verlag: Harvard University Press (18. März 2014)
Sprache: Englisch
ISBN 10: 067443000X
ISBN-10:
ISBN-13: 978-0674430006
Lost in Economics,, 9. Dezember,, UR,, H16,, 18.00
Richard Frensch
Quelle
Q
ll für
fü diesen
di
Vortrag
V t
sind
i d die
di englische
li h ebook-Version
b k V i sowie
i
Buchbesprechungen v.a. von Charles I. Jones, Paul Krugman,
Branko Milanovich, Karl-Heinz Paqué und Robert Solow
Übersicht
1
2
Worum es geht
Trends und Thesen
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
25
2.5
2.6
3
4
5
6
7
8
Vermögens-Einkommens-Relation (Mengeneffekt)
Funktionale Einkommensverteilung
Mengeneffekt und r > g
Vermögensverteilung (Konzentrationseffekt)
K
Konzentrationseffekt
i
ff k undd r > g
Interpersonelle Einkommensverteilung
Interpretation
p
von Wirtschaftsgeschichte:
g
„„Kapitalismen“
p
Wie weiter?
Wirtschaftspolitische Empfehlungen
Fazit
Anmerkungen
Diskussionspunkte
2
1 Worum es geht
In the 1950s–1970s, the top decile income share was about 30–35 percent of total income in Europe as in the United
States.
3
Sources and series: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/capital21c.
1 Worum es geht
Einkommensverteilungen sind seit den achtziger Jahren ungleicher geworden,
egal wie man sie misst.
(vgl. die Widmung in Sens Economics of Inequality, 1970: „with the hope that when
they grow up they will find less of it no matter how they decide to measure it.”
Insbesondere: Der Abstand zwischen ganz oben und dem Rest ist größer
geworden. In den USA stagnieren Medianeinkommen real seit etwa vierzig
Jahren während die Top-10% ihren Anteil am Gesamteinkommen auf fast
Jahren,
50% erhöhen konnten (davon alleine 20% für die Top-1%).
In seinem Buch Capital in the Twenty-First Century kombiniert Thomas
Piketty, auf der Basis einer unglaublich reichen Datensammlung,
Konzepte der langfristigen Wirtschaftsentwicklung mit Erklärungsansätzen
zur funktionalen und personellen Einkommensverteilung zu einem
innovativen Ansatz zur Erklärung langfristiger Verteilungstrends.
Langfristig bedeutet, es geht um die letzten drei Jahrhunderte, seit den
Anfängen der
d iindustriellen
d
i ll Revolution
l i bis
bi zur Globalisierung.
l b li i
4
1 Worum es geht
Aus Table 7.3. Inequality of total income (labor and capital) across time
and space
5
1 Worum es geht
Verteilungsfragen
• (Funktionale) Verteilung des BIP bzw.
bzw Volkseinkommens auf ArbeitsArbeits
und Vermögenseinkommen. Die ist wichtig, weil Vermögen hoch
konzentriert sind.
• Interpersonelle Verteilung von Vermögen und Einkommen,
Konzeptionell: Maße der Einkommenskonzentration (Anteilsklassen,
Quantile), Skalare Gini
Gini-Maße
Maße sind zu wenig ausssagekräftig.
Piketty nutzt zur Analyse von Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilungen
(so wie auch schon Pareto and Kuznets) Steuerdaten (Einkommens-,
(Einkommens ,
Vermögens- und Erbschaftssteuererklärungen) statt Haushaltssurveys,
• was sich als aussagekräftig im oberen Segment der Verteilungen erweist
(wahrscheinlich weniger im unteren).
• Steuerdaten reichen, insbesondere im Falle Frankreichs, weit zurück.
• Aber: Steuerliche Einkommen haben nicht immer was mit ökonomischen
Kriterien zu tun (bis 1987 waren Zinsen auf government bonds in den USA
nicht steuerpflichtig); Daten geben keinen Aufschluss über Nettoverteilung.
Nettoverteilung
6
1 Worum es geht
Kapital und Vermögen (zum Marktwert) sind für Piketty dasselbe, alles was
g also Land, Immobilien, Maschinen, Finanzkapital
p
((Bar,
Rendite bringt,
Bonds und Anteile), geistiges Eigentum, und – soweit legal – auch
Sklaven.
Aber: Anders als Kapitalrenditen müssen Vermögensrendite nicht Ergebnisse
von Produktionsprozesse sein (Preissteigerungen)
(Preissteigerungen). Piketty denkt,
denkt dass das in
echt langen Frist egal ist.
Entsprechend auch die Terminierung: Kapital/Vermögen bringen Rendite,
Vermögenseinkommen sind Renten für den Rentier.
Der Autor wählt einen Ansatz, bei dem es ein bisschen dauert, bis er über
Verteilung spricht. Das Buch ist in vier Teile gegliedert:
Part 1. Income and capital
Part 2. The dynamics of the capital/income ratio
Part 3. The structure of inequalities
q
Part 4. Regulating capital in the 21st century
7
1 Worum es geht
Pikettys Vorstellung von Demokratie beruht auf Chancengleichheit. Seine
Überzeugung: Der Rentier ist der Feind der Demokratie,
Demokratie eine
demokratische Gesellschaft ist nicht auf Dauer funktionsfähig, wenn an der
Spitze der Einkommensverteilung Arbeitseinkommen von Einkommen aus
g dominiert werden – so wie in den europäischen
p
vererbten Vermögen
Gesellschaften des 19. Jhdts.
Bedeutet die Entwicklung
g der letzten dreißig
g Jahre in Richtung
g mehr
Ungleichheit, dass wir wieder auf dem Wege dorthin sind?
Für eine solche Konstellation müssen – so wie in den europäischen
p
Gesellschaften des 19. Jhdts. – zwei Voraussetzungen erfült sein:
1.
2.
Mengeneffekt: Das gesamte (vererbte) Vermögen der Gesellschaft,
muss „groß“
ß“ sein,
i relativ
l ti zum Ei
Einkommen.
k
Konzentrationseffekt: Die Konzentration des (vererbten) Vermögens
muss „hoch“ sein.
8
2 1 Vermögens-Einkommens-Relation (Mengeneffekt)
2.1
National capital is worth about seven years of national income in Britain in 1700 (including four in agricultural
land).
9
2.1
Aggregate private wealth was worth about six to seven years of national income in Europe in 1910, between two and
three years in 1950, and between four and six years in 2010.
10
2.1
Definitionen:
Y: BIP bzw. Nationaleinkommen
g: Wachstumsrate von Y (WR der Produktivität plus WR
der Bevölkerung)
s: Nettosparquote (unter Berücksichtigung von
Abschreibungen)
V: Vermögen (bzw. Kapital)
r: Vermögensrendite
β = V/Y, Vermögens-Einkommensrelation
α = r· β, Anteil der Vermögenseinkommen
Auf die Dauer strebt β gegen s/g ( = ∆V/∆Y = sY/gY)
================================================
Piketty arbeitet empirisch und leitet aus Beobachtungen Gesetzmäßigkeiten ab
Pikettys Beobachtung: Über lange Dauer variiert r wenig über Raum und Zeit
((Krelle:…
e e:… seit
se t Adam
da und
u d Eva
va bei
be 5%)
Also entwicklen sich β und α in die gleiche Richtung.
11
2.1
Private capital is worth between two and 3.5 years of national income in rich countries in 1970, and between four
and seven years of national income in 2010.
12
2 2 Funktionale Einkommensverteilung
2.2
Capital income absorbs between 15 percent and 25 percent of national income in rich countries in 1970, and between
25 percent and 30 percent in 2000–2010.
13
Sources and series: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/capital21c
2 3 Mengeneffekt und r > g
2.3
The rate of return to capital (after tax and capital losses) fell below the growth rate during the twentieth century, and
might again surpass it in the twenty-first century.
14
2.3
Piketty ist nicht so sehr an gesamter Kapital- bzw. Vermögensakkumulation
interessiert sondern an der Entwicklung bestehender,
interessiert,
bestehender d.h.,
d h vererbter
Vermögen.
Vermögensakkumulation kann auf zwei Arten geschehen:
Schaffung neuer Vermögen, aus wachsendem Einkommen
Wachstum bestehender (vererbter) Vermögen
Bestehende (vererbte) Vermögen wachsen (so ungefähr) mit Rate r,
r Y
wächst mit g.
Dann wachsen sowohl die Relation bestehender (vererbter) Vermögen zu
Y als auch der entsprechende Vermögenseinkommensanteil,
wenn r > g (bzw.
(bzw wenn r >>g).
>>g)
Dieser Prozess hat zudem einen feedback loop: solange α wächst, werden die
Vermögenden nicht nur vermögender, sondern sie werden auch mehr zu
reinvestieren haben: D.h., die Nettokapitalrendite kann weiter ansteigen, da
15
anteilsmäßig immer weniger konsumiert werden dürfte.
2.3
Inherited wealth represents 80–90 percent of total wealth in France in the nineteenth century; this share fell to 40–50
percent during the twentieth century, and might return to 80–90 percent during the twenty-first century.
16
2.3
The top marginal tax rate of the income tax (applying to the highest incomes) in the United States dropped from 70
percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988.
17
2.3
The top marginal tax rate of the inheritance tax (applying to the highest inheritances) in the United States dropped
from 70 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2013.
18
2.3
(1) Abb. 10.11 ist etwas unglücklich (r-g ist sicher länderspezifisch) und
suggeriert das r >> g im 19.
suggeriert,
19 Jhdt.
Jhdt Warum blieb dann (V)V/Y in
Großbritannien bzw. Frankreich in der Zeit recht stabil?
Lt. Bank of England wuchs das BIP pro Nase in Großbritannien zwischen
1830 und 1910 um gut 2% pro Jahr. Die Bevölkerung von England und Wales
wuchs
h um gutt 1,5%
1 5% in
i der
d gleichen
l i h Zeit,
Z it d.h.,
d h g = 3,5
3 5 – 4%.
4%
(2) Warum ging (V)V/Y im 20. Jhdt. in Europa so stark zurück?
1. Hälfte: Kriege, und was dazu gehört: Zerstörung und (Kriege muss man
zahlen) Inflation und anschließende Verstaatlichungen verringern (vererbtes)
Vermögen unmittelbar.
Nachkriegszeit: starke Wachstumsphase (Konvergenz) in Europa, “les
les trente
glorieuses” (1945–75), bzw. “Wirtschaftswunder”, d.h., g war recht hoch.
Hohe Grenzsteuersätze für Einkommen und generell eine nach dem 2. WK
eher arbeitnehmerfreundliche und kapitalfeindliche Politik senkten r.
D.h., in der Nachkriegsphase, nach der direkten Zerstörung von Vermögen
war auch ausnahmsweise g > r. und Kapitalakkumulation geschah v.a.
durch Schaffung neuer Vermögen,
Vermögen nicht durch Wachstum bestehender
(vererbter) Vermögen.
19
2.3
(3) Diese Nachkriegsphase ist seit Anfang der achtziger Jahre vorbei,
g sank wieder auf die Rate des technischen Forschritts (lt. Piketty 1–1,5%)
plus ein ebenfalls sinkendes Bevölkerungswachstum von nur noch 1%:
g ist nur noch 2 – 2.5%.
2 5%
r stieg an, auch bedingt durch Änderungen der Wirtschaftspolitik, weil g
durch r angekurbelt werden sollte.
sollte
D.h., seit Anfang der achtziger Jahre geschieht Kapitalakkumulation
zunehmend wieder durch Wachstum bestehender (vererbter) Vermögen.
Vermögen
20
2 4 Vermögensverteilung (Konzentrationseffekt)
2.4
Anfangs wurden zwei Bedingungen genannt, unter denen an der Spitze der
Einkommensverteilung Arbeitseinkommen von Einkommen aus vererbten
Vermögen dominiert werden:
1
1.
Mengeneffekt: Das gesamte (vererbte) Vermögen der Gesellschaft,
muss „groß“ sein, relativ zum Einkommen.
Wie gesehen, in der Gegenwart ist die erste Bedingung (fast) wieder so
erfüllt wie vor hundert Jahren.
2.
Konzentrationseffekt: Die Konzentration des (vererbten) Vermögens
muss „hoch“ sein.
21
2.4
22
2.4
23
2.4
Wenn Vermögen genau so verteilt wäre wie Arbeitseinkommen, würde in
jedem Teil der Einkommensverteilung – auch in den Top-1% –
Arbeitseinkommen dominieren, denn gesamten Arbeitseinkommen >> alle
Einkommen aus Vermögen.
D.h., der Konzentrationseffekt der Vermögen muss den Mengeneffekt
dominieren, dafür wiederum muss das Top-1% der Vermögensverteilung
a ch richtig viel
auch
iel haben.
haben
Das war bis Anfang des 20. Jhdt. auch der Fall, mit Anteilen um die 50 – 60%.
Das ist fast das zehnfache des Anteils des Top-1% der Arbeitseinkommensbezieher ((6 – 7 Prozent,, eine lange
g Zeit stabile Größenordnung).
g)
Dieses 10:1 Verhältnis der Konzentration von Erbvermögen zu
Arbeitseinkommen reicht aus, den 1:3 Mengeneffekt mehr als zu
kompensieren.
In den Nachkriegsjahren war der Konzentrationseffekt zu klein, um den
Mengeneffekt auszugleichen.
24
2.4
U il the
Until
h mid-twentieth
id
i h century, wealth
l h inequality
i
li was higher
hi h in
i Europe
E
than
h in
i the
h United
U i d States.
S
25
2 5 Konzentrationseffekt und r > g
2.5
Was beeinflusst die Konzentration der Vermögen?
r ist die durchschnittliche Vermögensrendite,
Vermögensrendite die aber mit der Größe der
Vermögen korreliert ist: Ganz große Vermögen rentieren höher als kleine,
wegen economies of scale (Verwaltung) und scope (Risikostreuung).
Kleine Vermögen (Sparguthaben) sind nicht einmal inflationsgeschützt
inflationsgeschützt.
D.h., wenn (r – g) ansteigt, dann steigt nicht nur der Anteil der
bestehenden Vermögen an allen Vermögen(seinkommen) (Mengeneffekt),
sondern auch die Konzentration der Vermögen, und damit auch der Anteil
von Vermögenseinkommen in den obersten Einkommensklassen.
Anmerkung: “In any dynamic, multiplicative wealth accumulation model with
random
d
individual
i di id l shocks
h k (,..),
( ) the
h steady-state
d
l l off wealth
level
l h concentration
i is
i
an increasing function of r – g (with r = net-of-tax rate of return and g =
growth rate).”
Zu normalen Zeiten, wenn r >> g, kommt nach Piketty ein Mechanismus
steigender Vermögenskonzentration (the rich get richer) in Schwung, so
wie bis zum ersten WK.
26
2 6 Interpersonelle Einkommensverteilung
2.6
In den letzten Jahrzehnten sind demnach sowohl die Relation bestehender
(vererbte) Vermögens relativ zum Einkommen angestiegen, als auch die
Konzentration der (vererbten) Vermögen.
Fragen:
1. Wo stehen Vermögenseinkommen
g
mitterweile in den Topp
Einkommensklassen?
2. Wie hoch war der Beitrag
g der wieder zunehmenden Vermögensg
Einkommensrelation under der Vermögenskonzentration zur Änderung der
interpersonellen Einkommensverteilung in den letzen dreißig Jahren?
3. Wie geht es weiter?
27
2.6
Labor income becomes less and less important as one goes up within the top decile of total income. Notes: (i) “P90–
95” includes individuals between percentiles 90 to 95, “P95–99” includes the next 4 percent, “P99–99.5” the
next 0.5 percent, etc.; (ii) Labor income: wages, bonuses, pensions. Capital income: dividends, interest, rent.
Mixed income: self-employment income.Sources and series: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/capital21c.
28
2.6
Labor income becomes less and less important as one goes up within the top decile of total income. Notes: (i) “P90–
95” includes individuals between p
percentiles 90 to 95,, “P95–99” includes the next 4 p
percent,, “P99–99.5” the
next 0.5 percent, etc.; (ii) Labor income: wages, bonuses, pensions. Capital income: dividends, interest, rent.
Mixed income: self-employment income.Sources and series: see piketty.pse.ens.fr/capital21c.
29
2.6
In the 1950s–1970s, the top decile income share was about 30–35 percent of total income in Europe as in the United
States.
30
2.6
As compared to Anglo-Saxon
Anglo Saxon countries
countries, the share of top percentile barely increased since the 1970s in Continental
Europe and Japan.
31
2.6
As compared to Anglo-Saxon
Anglo Saxon countries
countries, the top percentile income share barely increased in Northern and Southern
Europe since the 1970s.
32
2.6
The share of top percentile in total income rose since the 1970s in all Anglo-Saxon countries, but with different
magnitudes.
33
2.6
Zum Beitrag der (durch r>g) zunehmenden Mengen- und Konzentrationseffekte der Vermögenseinkommen zur Veränderung der Top-10%
Top 10% der
interpersonellen Einkommensverteilung in den letzen dreißig Jahren sagt
Piketty eigentlich nichts.
In Bezug auf die Top-1% ist in Kontinentaleuropa nicht so viel zu erklären.
Diesbzgl. sind die Äußerungen gerade zu Dtl. nicht ganz unproblematisch: In
Germany,
y, the topp centile’s share rose from about 9 ppercent to nearlyy 11 ppercent of
national income between the early 1980s and the early 2010s (see Figure 9.3).
Auf jeden Fall ist der Trend zu weniger Ungleichheit gebrochen.
In den angelsächsischen Ländern sieht Piketty einen Beitrag von einem Drittel
zur Veränderung der Top-1% der interpersonellen Einkommensverteilungen in den letzen dreißig Jahren durch Mengen- und
Konzentrationseffekte der Vermögenseinkommen.
Vermögenseinkommen
Der deutlich überwiegende Beitrag ist auf steigende Ungleichheit in
Arbeitseinkommen zurückzuführen, und zwar auf deutlich angestiegene
Supermanager-Einkommen.
p
g
34
3 Interpretation von Wirtschaftsgeschichte: „Kapitalismen
Kapitalismen“
Wenn man bei diesen Fakten von einer Rückkehr des Rentiers spricht, spricht
das nicht gegen die Evidenz? Das sieht Piketty schon auch so,
so und
klassifiziert drei bisherige Typen von Kapitalismus:
(i)
Klasssischer Belle Époque “patrimonial capitalism“: hohe Korrelation
zwischen
i h Vermögensstatus
V
ö
t t und
d Einkommensstatus,
Ei k
t t bei
b ir>g
(ii) “Convergence capitalism”, schwache Korrelation zwischen
g
und Einkommensstatus, nach p
physischer
y
Zerstörung
g
Vermögensstatus
von Vermögen und r < g
(iii) Teilweise Rückkehr zu (i), bei r > g
•
•
•
Eine geringere Vermögenskonzentration in der Spitzee
Es gibt eine vermögende Mittelklasse.
Key feature des “patrimonial capitalism” ist nach Piketty die Möglichkeit,
mit einer Erbschaft ein nettes Leben zu führen. Das können heute sicher
mehr Leute als vor hundert Jahren, und das klingt auch weniger
demokratiefeindlich als die Gesellschaft zu dominieren.
Im top 1% der Einkommensverteilung finden sich nicht nur Vermögende
sondern auch “working
working rich”
rich (Supermanager).
(Supermanager)
35
Kapitalismen“
Inheritance made about 25 percent of the resources of nineteenth-century cohorts, down to less than 10 percent for
cohorts born in 1910–1920 (who should have inherited in 1950–1960).
36
Kapitalismen“
Within the cohorts born around 1970–1980,
1970 1980 12
12–14
14 percent of individuals receive in inheritance the equivalent of the
lifetime labor income received by the bottom 50 percent less well paid workers.
37
4 Wie weiter?
Was ist nun Pikettys Vorstellung von der Rolle von Kapital bzw. Vermögen
im 21.
21 Jhdt.?
Jhdt ?
Geringeres g, Produktivität wächst nur noch mit der sinkenden Rate des
technischen Fortschritts, Bevölkerungswachstum geht zurück.
zurück
Siehe auch Phelps: high innovation was good for US equality, not bad!
r steigt eher noch
noch, durch Einflüsse der finanziellen Globalisierung
Globalisierung,
Im Endeffekt wird g deutlich geringer sein als r, so dass die Dominanz
bestehender (vererbter) Vermögen und die Vermögenskonzentration
wieder ansteigen werden.
Der Punkt in der Einkommensverteilung, ab dem (vererbte)
Vermögenseinkommen dominieren wird zurückgehen, Rentiers werden wieder
di Spitze
die
S i der
d Einkommensverteilung
i k
il
dominieren.
d i i
38
5 Wirtschaftspolitische Empfehlungen
Eine progressive (möglichst globale) jährliche Vermögenssteuer auf den
Marktwert von Vermögens kann r unter g drücken,
drücken oder näher dran:
0 unter ein Mio. euro, 1% zwischen 0 und 5 Mio. euro, und 2% darüber,
kombiniert mit progressiver Erbschafts- und Schenkungssteuer für große
Nachlässe (max. Steuersatz von 80% ),
sollen die drohende Dominanz vererbter Vermögen und
Vermögenseinkommen eindämmen.
Der Umverteilungseffekt (2% des BIP pro Jahr) ist ein willkommener
Nebeneffekt.
39
Neu sind solche Steuern auch nicht (Immobilien, Land und Erbschaftssteuer),
ganz im Gegenteil sind Steuern auf Vermögen die ältesten,
ältesten man kann sie ja
auf alle Vermögen ausdehnen.
Argumentation gegen höhe Steuern auf Vermögen(seinkommen):
Steuerflucht.
Piketty macht deshalb sehr eindringlich klar,
klar wie gefährlich eine NichtNicht
Kooperation ist, abgesehen von ein paar entgangenen Steuermillionen: Es
geht auch um demokratische Legitimation: sollen vermögende Top-1% (in
Dtl. eine halbe Mio. Leute)) eine Gesellschaft dominieren?
Piektty sieht Begrenzung hoher Vermögen als Begrenzung der politischen
g
g
g selbst „„ist“
Macht ((Problem: Der Akt solcher Steuergesetzgebung
Begrenzung der politischen Macht).
Diskussion zu Vermögenssteuern
g
gibt
g es in Europa,
p , in den USA seit
einiger Zeit nicht mehr.
40
Höhere Grenzsteuersätze (80%) auf Top-Einkommen (ab halber oder einer
Mio $ im Jahr) sollen Supermanagergehälter eindämmen.
Mio.
eindämmen
Die Supermanagergehälter haben vielleicht nicht so viel mit dem
Grenzprodukt der relevanten Arbeit zu tun,
tun das bei nicht-homogener
nicht homogener
Arbeit ohnehin schwer festzustellen ist.
Es wäre effizienzsteigernd,
effizienzsteigernd solche Gehälter durch hohe Grenzsteuersätze
zu senken (nicht nur netto, sondern auch brutto, weil es sich nicht mehr
lohnen würde, sich darum zu bemühen (oder ggf. dafür Konzerne zu
)
verschmelzen).
41
6 Fazit
Piketty stellt die Entwicklungen der Einkommenskonzentration der letzten
Jahrzehnte in einen langfristigen Kontext,
Kontext sein Ansatz ist politpolit
ökonomisch, die grundlegenden Einflußkräfte auf
Einkommensverteilungen sind demnach nicht nur Wachstum und
g , Inflation und Wirtschaftspolitik
p
Renditen,, sondern auch Kriege,
(Besteuerung).
Piketty
y analysiert
y
die Entwickungg der letzten dreißigg Jahre nicht als
isoliertes Phänomen divergierender Arbeitseinkommen, durch Einflüsse
von Technologie oder Außenhandel, sondern sieht sie als inhärentes
Charakteristikum einer kapitalistischen Gesellschaft. Er argumentiert, dass
Vermögens und Einkommensdivergenzen über längere Zeiträume
Vermögensunvermeidlich sind, und dass das 20. Jhdt. in dieser Hinsicht nur eine
erklärbare Ausnahme darstellt.
Es geht Piketty aber nicht nur darum, inhärente Gefahren für die
demokratische Überlebensfähigkeit eines kapitalistischen
y
zu erkennen ((die er in marktorientierten
Wirtschaftssystems
Verteilungstrends sieht), sondern diesen Gefahren durch
wirtschaftspolitische Vorschläge zu begegnen.
42
6 Fazit
Vermögenskonzentration ist immer höher als Konzentration von
Arbeitseinkommen.
Vermögenskonzentration heute ist aber weitaus geringer als von hundert
Jahren, entsprechend spielen Vermögenseinkommen heute eine deutlich
geringere
i
Rolle
R ll in
i den
d Top-1%
T 1% der
d Ei
Einkommensverteilung.
k
t il
Pikettys Daten zeigen langfristige Trends zu mehr Vermögenskonzentration,
di iim 20
die
20. Jhdt
Jhdt. recht
ht ddramatisch
ti h unterbrochen
t b h wurden.
d Di
Diese
Unterbrechung scheint seit den achtziger Jahren wieder aufgehoben.
Wie schnell
Wi
h ll sind
i d Trends
T d zur Vermögenskonzentration?
V
ö
k
t ti ?
Historisch eher nicht so schnell; zudem sind Grenzsteuersätze für
Einkommen und Erbschaften höher als vor hundert Jahren.
Pikett : in Zukunft
Piketty:
Z k nft schneller,
schneller da (g – r) größer wird.
ird
Kommentar: In der Zwischenzeit scheint es Änderungen in der unteren Hälfte
der Einkommensverteilung zu geben,
geben die zumindest nicht weniger wichtig
erscheinen.
43
7 Anmerkungen
•
Datenqualität
•
Vermögensbewertung von mit aktuellen Preisen oder auf der Basis der
Kapitaleinkommensströmen (Mieten statt Immobilienpreise)?
•
Die „Konstanz“ von r bei steigender V-Y-Relation
•
Endogenitäten
E
d
ität zwischen
i h g undd r?? Einfluss
Ei fl
der
d Demographie
D
hi nicht
i ht nur
direkt auf g sondern auch auf Produktivitätswachstum und auf r?
•
„Supermanagergehälter“
S
hält “
•
Nur Blick „nach oben“
•
Pikettys Empfehlungen an die Ökonomie
44
7 Anmerkungen
Zur Datenqualität startete v.a. Chris Giles, economics editor der Financial
Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e1f343cae281-11e3-89fd(http://www ft com/cms/s/2/e1f343cae281 11e3 89fd
00144feabdc0.html#axzz32c4vxogI), eine Diskussion zu Diskrepanzen
v.a. zwischen Piketts Daten und denen des britischen Office for National
Statistics.
Abgesehen vielleicht von der Kontroverse um die britischen
g
schaut es nicht so aus,, als ob andere Daten eine
Vermögensdaten
fundamental andere story erzählen.
45
7 Anmerkungen
Quelle: Inequality. A Piketty Problem? The Economist, Free exchange Economics,
May 24th 2014, London, 8:21 by R.A. | London
46
7 Anmerkungen
Quelle: Inequality. A Piketty Problem? The Economist, Free exchange Economics,
May 24th 2014, London, 8:21 by R.A. | London
47
7 Anmerkungen
Soll man Vermögen zu lfd. Preisen bewerten oder als Gegenwartswert von
Einkommensströmen?
Das macht offenbar bei der Bewertung von Immobilienvermögen einen
recht grpßen Unterschied (Mieten statt Immobilienpreise)
Immobilienpreise). Dann wäre ein
Großteil des Mengeneffektes der letzten Jahrzehnte offenbar wieder dahin.
Siehe: Bonnet, Odran, Pierre-Henri Bono, Guillaume Chapelle und Etienne
Wasmer,, Does housing
g capital
p
contribute to inequality?
q
y A comment on
Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century. Sciences Po Economics
Discussion Papers 07/2014.
Die Autoren erkennen durchaus an, dass auch steignde Immobilienpreise einen
Ungleichheitseffekt haben,
haben in Form eines höheren Vermögenswertes,
Vermögenswertes der sich
allerdings nicht unmittelbar in höheren Einkommen aus Vermögen
niederschlägt.
Demnach wäre die V-Y-Relation on Frankreich, den USA, UK und Kanda
eher kaum gestiegen, in Deutschland allerdings trotzdem stärker.
48
7 Anmerkungen
The share of housing rent (rental value of dwellings) rose from 2 percent of national income in 1948 to 10 percent in
2010.
49
7 Anmerkungen
Die „Konstanz“ von r bei steigender V-Y-Relation ist ein potentieller
Schwachpunkt in Pikettys Argumentationskette
Argumentationskette.
Wäre Vermögen und Input Kapital wirklich identisch, würde das – wegen
der Definition von α – bedeuten, dass die Substitutionselastizität zwischen
Arbeit und Kapital höher war und ist als 1, und auch bleiben wird.
Piketty verteidigt das :
• Zunehmende Rendite für höhere Vermögen.
• Zunehmende financial sophistication and internationale Anlagemögichkeiten
für Vermögen (d.h., insbesondere auch, dass Vermögen und Kapital in einem
Landd zunehmend
h
d nicht
i h identisch
id i h sind).
i d)
• Weder Löhne noch Rendite haben viel mit Grenzproduktsentlohnung zu tun.
Letztlich ist das eine empirische Frage, und eine etwaige Konstanz von r
ist nicht für alle Ewigkeit.
50
7 Anmerkungen
Endogenitäten zwischen g und r? Einfluss der Demographie nicht nur direkt
auf g sondern auch auf Produktivitätswachstum und auf r?
Hier kommt die Abkehr von Wachstumstheorie auch voll zum tragen, es
gibt keine Endogenitäten, sondern einfach: entweder ist r ist größer als g,
unter Berücksichtigung von Steuern und Konsum, oder nicht.
51
7 Anmerkungen
Erstaunlich ist, dass das Phänomen der Supermanager-Einkommen bisher
begrenzt ist.
ist Sind amerikanische Manager wirklich so viel besser als
deutsche? Oder gibt es es einen institutionellen Unterschied bei der
Gehaltsfindung, und ein deutscher Manager muss eben einfach nur ein
y )
amerikanischer werden ((Mercedes -> Daimler-Chrysler)?
Vielleicht ist die Unterscheidung in Arbeits- versus Vermögenseinkommen
g sie an GP-Entlohnung
g orientiert ist,, die
hier etwas irreführend,, so lange
hier vielleicht nicht weiter hilft.
Auf jjeden Fall schaffen dermaßen hohe Gehälter letztlich vererbbare
Vermögen und Vermögenseinkommen.
Dann haben diese Supermanager-Einkommen verzögerte
Vermögenskonzentrationseffekte zur Folge, und der Beitrag zunehmender
V
Vermögenskonzentration
ö
k
t ti zur Veränderung
V ä d
der
d Top-1%
T 1% der
d
interpersonellen Einkommensverteilung in den letzen dreißig Jahren wird
in den angelsächsischen Ländern unterschätzt.
52
7 Anmerkungen
Quelle: Joachim Möller: Labor Market Performance and Wage Inequality – The
German Case. 3rd Biannual Assisi Workshop on Economics and Inequality,
Technology and Institutions in Europe, 20 – 21 February 2014.
53
7 Anmerkungen
Piketty zeigt die Sicht auf Ungleichheit „nach oben“, wenn man so will, die
top 1% gegen den Rest der Welt
Welt.
Krugman: It therefore came as a revelation when Piketty and his colleagues
showed that incomes of the now famous “one percent,” and of even narrower
groups, are actually the big story in rising inequality.
Zunehmende Ungleichheit ist aber sicher mehr als die Konzentration von
Einkommen in den Top-1%.
Wie gesehen, ist die 1%-Gewinner story zumindest bisher, in Deutschland
nur begrenzt relevant. Trotzdem hat sich die Ungleichheit der Einkommen
auch in Deutschland erhöht, aber eher in dem Sinne, das „ganz unten“
verloren hat,
hat gegenüber allen anderen.
anderen
Dafür auch relevant ist die Entwicklung eines Niedriglohnsektors, der,
nach Litauen, in Europa nun der zweithöchste ist.
Diese Entwicklung begann interessanterweise zu Beginn der auch von
Piketty immer wieder zitierten achtziger Jahre, also deutlich vor
Globalisierungswelle und Harz IV.
54
7 Anmerkungen
Für Piketty ist Ökonomie v.a. eine Sozialwissenschaft, seine Themen sucht er
sich nach gesellschaftlicher Relevanz
Relevanz, methodisch votiert er stark für
empirische aber auch (wirtschafts-)historische Methoden.
Diese Methodendiskussion ist nicht ferade neu, aber Pikettys Beitrag dazu
ist einfach
einfach, dass er vormacht
vormacht, wie man Wissenschaft produziert
produziert, die einen
echten – und voraussichtlich dauerhaften – impact hat.
Generelle Anmerkung zu Büchern in der Ökonomie: Seit Keynes gab es lange
keine einflussreichen Bücher mehr in Ökonomie, das hat sich in letzter Zeit
starkk geändert.
ä d
Pikettys Argumentation ist nie auf Effizienz alleine beschränkt, sondern politök
ökonomisch
i h motiviert,
ti i t für
fü ihn
ih ist
i t Gerechtigkeit
G
hti k it eine
i Kategorie,
K t
i die
di
Ökonomen nicht außer Acht lassen sollten.
Das wurde im Zuge der Transformation in den neunziger Jahren v.a. in den
Ländern der ehemaligen SU komplett ignoriert, was auch dazu beigetragen hat,
dass der Begriff „Marktwirtschaft“ in Russland eher nicht mit „Wohlstand für
alle“ besetzt ist, mit entsprechenden politischen, und damit dann auch
ökonomischen Konsequenzen.
55
8 Diskussionspunkte
•
Sind Vermögen und Kapital wirklich das Gleiche?
•
Geht es den meisten Leuten eigentlich um ihre Position in irgendeiner
Verteilung oder um den realen Wohlstand/Einkommen?
•
Was ist der Unterschied für demokratische Legitimität, ob an der Spitze
der Verteilung nun Supermanager oder Kapitalbesitzer sind? Ist das nicht
eh dasselbe?
•
Haben die Gehälter von Supermanagern etwas mit Grenzprodukten zu tun?
•
Mehr oder weniger Ungleichheit ist das Resultat von Verteilungskämpfen.
Warum werden die eigentlich mit Verweis auf Produktivitäten geführt?
Kennen wir das Grenzprodukt von Arbeit und Kapital überhaupt?
•
Ist es wichtig, woher Ungleichheit kommt, ob sie auf Vermögens- oder
Arbeitseinkommen beruht? Oder ob ungleiche Arbeitseinkommen auf
Produktivitäten beruhen,
beruhen oder nicht?
56
8 Diskussionspunkte
•
Welches Konzentrationsmaß ist nun wichtig Top-10%, Top 1 oder noch
kleiner?
Vermögende Top -1% dominierten Europa vor 100 Jahre, ökonomische
und politische Macht (Wahlrecht) waren eng verbunden. Ist das heute auch
so? Was bedeutet es heute, eine Gesellschaft „zu dominieren?
•
Manchmal charakterisiert Piketty Rentiers als die, die die Gesellschaft
dominier(t)en, manchmal als die, die ohne Arbeit ein nettes Leben führen.
Ist das dasselbe? Was ist eigentlich eine „Leistungsgesellschaft
Leistungsgesellschaft“?´Kann
? Kann
man als Mitteklasseerbe nicht auch signifikant leichter leben als der größte
Teil der Gesellschaft?
•
Haben die Umverteilungen im 20. Jhdt. dauerhafte Effekte? Wenn ja, sind
die Probleme im 21. Jhdt. vielleicht einfach anders als vor hundert Jahren?
Vielleicht geht es einfach gar nicht mehr um das Top-1% gegen den Rest
d Welt
der
l undd Piketty
ik
beschreibt
b h ib Probleme
bl
der
d Vergangenheit
h i oder
d der
d
fernen Zukunft, während die anstehend Verteilungskonflikte vielleicht
ganz andere sind?
57
8 Diskussionspunkte
•
Piketty zeigt die Sicht auf Ungleichheit „nach oben“, wenn man so will,
die top 1% gegen den Rest der Welt.
Zunehmende Ungleichheit ist in Deutschland aber vermutlich eher ein
Problem in dem Sinne, das „ganz unten“ verloren hat, gegenüber allen
anderen (Niedriglohnsektor), auch gegenüber dem Mittelstand, die gute
jobs haben und Immobilien erben?
•
Sind Steuern wirklich die (einzige) Antwort auf Ungleichheit? Was ist mit
der Anreizwirkung von Steuern?
•
Was bedeuten hohe Erbschaftssteuern für den Mittelstand? Bietet das
einen Anreiz für mehr Eigentümerwechsel,
Eigentümerwechsel und wäre das gut oder
schlecht?
•
Hat die Finanzkrise vielleicht auch etwas mit Ungleichheit zu tun? Ursache
oder Wirkung?
58
Mehr slides
59
2.1
The inheritance flow follows a U
U-shape
shape in curve in France as well as in the United Kingdom and Germany.
Germany It is
possible that gifts are underestimated in the United Kingdom at the end of the period.
60
2.4
61
2.6
Labor income becomes less and less important as one moves up within the top income decile.
62
2.6
Capital income becomes dominant at the level of top 0.1 percent in 2007, as opposed to the top 1 percent in 1929.
63
Kapitalismen“
The annual inheritance flow was about 20–25 percent of national income during the nineteenth century and until
1914; it then fell to less than 5 percent in the 1950s, and returned to about 15 percent in 2010.
64
Kapitalismen“
In the nineteenth century,
century the living standards that could be attained by the top 1 percent inheritors were a lot higher
than those that could be attained by the top 1 percent labor earners.
65
Capital in the 21st century
Thomas Piketty
i
Rezensionen, zusammen gestellt von Felix Petzold (IOS Regensburg)
Branko Milanovic
z The Return of "Patrimonial Capitalism": A Review of Thomas Piketty's
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
z Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty provides a unified theory of the
functioning of the capitalist economy by linking theories of economic growth and functional
and personal income distributions. It argues, based on the long-run historical data series, that
th forces
the
f
off economic
i divergence
di
(including
(i l di rising
i i income
i
inequality)
i
lit ) tend
t d to
t dominate
d i t in
i
capitalism. It regards the twentieth century as an exception to this rule and proposes policies
that would make capitalism sustainable in the twenty-first century.
z Journal of Economic Literature Vol. 52 (2)
z https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jel.52.2.519
67
Odran Bonnet, Pierre-Henri Bono, Guillaume
Chapelle, Etienne Wasmer
z D
Does h
housing
i capital
it l contribute
t ib t to
t inequality?
i
lit ? A commentt on Thomas
Th
Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century
z
In his book,, Capital
p
in the 21st Century,Thomas
y,
Pikettyy highlights
g g the risk of an explosion
p
of wealth inequality
q
y
because capital is accumulating faster than income in several countries including the US and European countries
such as France. Our work challenges the conclusions of the author in three steps. First, the author’s result is based
on the rise of only one of the components of capital, namely housing capital,and due to housing prices. In fact,
housing prices have risen faster than rent and income in many countries.It is worth noting that “productive” capital,
excluding
l di housing,
h i has
h only
l risen
i
weakly
kl relative
l i to income
i
over the
h last
l few
f decades.
d d Over the
h longer
l
run, the
h
“productive” capital/income ratio has not increased at all. Second, rent, not housing prices, should matter for the
dynamics of wealth inequality, because rent represents both the actual income of housing capital for landlords and
the dwelling costs saved by “owner-occupiers” (people living in their own houses). Logically, to properly measure
capital the value of housing capital must be corrected by measuring it on actual rental price,
capital,
price and not housing
prices. Third, when we apply this change, we find that the capital/income ratio is actually stable or only mildly
higher in the countries analyzed (France, the US, the UK, and Canada) except for Germany where it rose. These
conclusions are exactly opposite to those found by Thomas Piketty. However, this does not mean that housing
pprices do not contribute to other forms of inequality.
q
y When housingg pprices rise,, owners of the housing
g capital
p
hold a
higher value that can be transformed into consumption. It is also more difficult for young adults to become
homeowners. Housing incomes of owners however do not necessarily increase which casts serious doubt on
Piketty’s conclusion of a potential explosive dynamics of inequality based on these trends.
z Sciences Po Economics Discussion Papers 07/2014
68
z http://spire.sciencespo.fr/hdl:/2441/30nstiku669glbr66l6n7mc2oq/resources/2014-07.pdf
Stefan Homburg
z Critical Remarks on Piketty’s ‘Capital in the Twenty-first Century’
z Thiss pape
paper iss about “Capital
Cap ta in the
t e Twenty-first
we ty st Century”
Ce tu y by Thomas
o as Piketty.
etty. Itt identifies
de t es hiss
central macroeconomic claims and examines them, arguing that the contentions are
theoretically and empirically unwarranted.
z University of Hannover, Institute of Public Economics, Discussion Paper No. 530
z http://diskussionspapiere.wiwi.uni
http://diskussionspapiere.wiwi.uni-hannover.de/pdf
hannover.de/pdf_bib/dp
bib/dp-530.pdf
530.pdf
69
Debraj Ray
z Nit-Piketty
i i
- A comment on Thomas Piketty’s
i
’ Capital
C i iin the Twenty First
i
Century
z Thomas Piketty
Piketty’ss heart is definitely in the right place.
place Capital in the Twenty First Century
addresses the great question of our times: the phenomenon of persistent and rising inequality.
Piketty has amassed data — both from a motley collection of sources and from his own
empirical work — that shows how inequality has not just been high, but on the rise. Piketty
purports to provide an integrated explanation of it all. Paul Krugman calls it “the unified field
theory of inequality.” Comparisons to Marx’s great Capital abound (perhaps not entirely
unsolicited). Even in this quick-moving bite-hungry world, everyone is still cheering, weeks
after the English translation has appeared.
appeared That
That’ss pretty amazing.
amazing Amazing,
Amazing but at another
level, unsurprising. We’ve been handed a Messiah — in the form of a sizable tome that
contains the laws of capitalism, yes, Laws! The tome has been approved — nay, embraced —
by seemingly sensible economists and reviewers. It is written by a good economist whose
intellectual acumen is undisputed (I have first-hand evidence for this). It unerringly asks the
right questions. So the knee-jerk intellectuals are all a-Twitter, so to speak.
z University of new York, Department of Economics
z http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Papers/Piketty.pdf
70
Tyler Cowen
z Capital
C it l Punishment
P ih
t - Why
Wh a Gl
Global
b lT
Tax on W
Wealth
lth W
Won't
't E
End
d IInequality
lit
z Every now and then, the field of economics produces an important book; this is one of them.
Thomas Piketty’s tome will put capitalist wealth back at the center of public debate,
debate resurrect
interest in the subject of wealth distribution, and revolutionize how people view the history of
income inequality. On top of that, although the book’s prose (translated from the original
French)) might
g not qualify
q
y as scintillating,
g anyy educated person
p
will be able to understand it -which sets the book apart from the vast majority of works by high-level economic theorists.
z Foreign
g Affairs Vol. 93 ((3))
z http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141218/tyler-cowen/capital-punishment
71
Lawrence H. Summers
z The Inequality Puzzle
z Thomas
o as Piketty’s
etty s tour
tou de force
o ce analysis
a a ys s doesn’t
does t get eve
everything
yt g right,
g t, but it’s
t s ce
certainly
ta y gotten
gotte us
pondering the right questions. Once in a great while, a heavy academic tome dominates for a
time the policy debate and, despite bristling with footnotes, shows up on the best-seller list.
Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century is such a volume. As with Paul
K
Kennedy’s
d ’ The
Th Rise
Ri andd Fall
F ll off the
h Great
G
Powers,
P
which
hi h came outt att the
th endd off the
th Reagan
R
Administration and hit a nerve by arguing the case against imperial overreach through an
extensive examination of European history, Piketty’s treatment of inequality is perfectly
matched to its moment.
z Democracy Journal Issue 33 (Fall 2014)
z http://www.democracyjournal.org/33/the-inequality-puzzle.php
72
Randall G. Holcombe
z Thomas
Th
Pik
Piketty:
tt Capital
C it l in
i the
th twenty-first
t
t fi t century
t
z Piketty’s book is well-written and offers the reader a substantial amount of data to support his
conclusion
l i that
h capitalism
i li contains
i within
i hi it
i tendencies
d i that
h lead
l d to growing
i inequalities
i
li i in
i wealth
lh
and income over time. Since the book made the New York Times best-seller list it has been
reviewed numerous times in the popular press. Some reviewers have questioned Piketty’s data. My
comments
co
e s are
a e oriented
o e ed toward
owa d thee way hee interprets
e p e s thee data
da a hee presents,
p ese s, without
w ou passing
pass g judgment
judg e
regarding its accuracy.
z Public Choice Vol.
Vol 160 (3
(3-4)
4)
z http://link.springer.com/journal/11127/160/3/page/1
73
Thomas I. Palleyy
z The accidental controversialist: deeper reflections on Thomas Piketty’s Capital
z Thomas
o as Piketty’s
etty s Capital
Cap ta in the
t e Twenty-First
we ty st Century
Ce tu y iss a six
s hundred
u d ed and
a d eighty-five
e g ty ve page
tome that definitively characterizes the empirical pattern of income and wealth inequality in
capitalist economies over the past two hundred and fifty years, and especially over the last one
hundred. It also documents the grotesque rise of inequality over the past forty years and ends
with
ith a call
ll for
f restoration
t ti off high
hi h marginal
i l income
i
tax
t rates
t andd a global
l b l wealth
lth tax.
t His
Hi book
b k
has tapped a nerve and become a phenomenon. In laying a solid blow against inequality, Piketty
has also become an accidental controversialist. That is because his book has potential to
unintentionallyy trigger
gg debate over so-called “free market” capitalism.
p
The big
g qquestion is will
that happen?
z Real
Real-World
World Economics Review Issue 67
z http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/
74
Dean Baker et.al.
et al
z Special
S i l issue
i
on Piketty’s
Pik tt ’ Capital
C it l
z Sonderausgabe mit 17 Aufsätzen zu “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”
z Real-World Economics Review Issue 69
z http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue69/whole69.pdf
75
Alexander J.
J Field
z Capital
C it l in
i the
th T
Twenty
t Fi
Firstt Century:
C t
A Review
R i Essay
E
z The empirical work in Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century is simply
breathtaking, but his use of the terms capital and marketable wealth interchangeably leads us to
consider the implications of distinguishing between them, and calls our attention to important
issues that deserve further exploration. In the title of his 1968 review of early research in
Cliometrics Lance Davis opined that “it
Cliometrics,
it will never be literature
literature.” One of Thomas Piketty’s
Piketty s
many achievements in Capital in the Twenty First Century is to prove Davis wrong. Piketty’s
book is both an exemplary work in quantitative economic history and economic literature in the
finest sense, written with the Cartesian clarity we associate with the French scientific tradition.
It is, moreover, quite remarkably, also about literature, in particular about the novels of Jane
Austen, Henry James, and Honoré de Balzac, and the nineteenth century wealth dynamics they
brought to life.
z Journal of Economic History Vol. 74 (3)
z http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JEH
76
Robert Rowthorne
z A note on Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century
z Thomas
o as Piketty’s
etty s Capital docu
documents
e ts long-term
o g te trends
t e ds in income
co e and
a d wealth
wea t in advanced
adva ced
economies. It also provides a theoretical framework for analysing the past and projecting the
future. Piketty argues that the ratio of wealth to national income is on an upward trend and that
this is responsible for the rising income share of wealth-owners. This note accepts Piketty’s
main
i empirical
i i l findings
fi di
bbutt questions
ti
his
hi iinterpretation.
t
t ti
The
Th rising
i i income
i
share
h off wealthlth
owners is not due to the over-accumulation of capital, as he claims, but just the opposite. There
has been too little real investment. The note also considers the long-term dynamics of Piketty’s
model and explores
p
the effect of modifying
y g his assumptions
p
about savings
g behaviour. Finally,
y, it
considers the implications of rising asset prices, which are documented by Piketty but are not
adequately taken into account in his theoretical analysis or projection of future trends.
z Cambridge Journal of Economics Vol. 38 (5)
z http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5.toc
http://cje oxfordjournals org/content/38/5 toc
77
Bradyy J. Deaton
z Thomas Piketty, translated by Arthur Goldhammer: Capital in the Twenty-First
Century
z -
z Journal of Economic Issues Vol
Vol. 48 (3)
z https://www.mesharpe.com/mall/results1.asp?acr=jei
78
Nicholas Vrousalis
z Piketty's Grandchildren
z This review of Piketty (2014) argues that, although the author does a fine job outlining
capitalism's 'fundamental structural contradiction', it completely misconstrues the set of
policies and the kind of agency that would be required to remove it.
z Capital & Class (in einer der kommenden Ausgaben)
z http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=2495840
2495840
79
Karl Heinz Paqué
Karl-Heinz
z Der Historizismus
i
i i
des Jakobiners
i
– Anmerkungen
A
zu dem Buch „Capital
C i iin
the Twenty-First Century“ von Thomas Piketty
z
Dieser Beitrag ist aus aktuellem Anlass den zentralen Thesen des volkswirtschaftlichen Bestsellers Capital in the
Twenty-First Century von Thomas Piketty gewidmet. Karl-Heinz Paqué stellt fest, dass Piketty in historizistischer
Tradition eherne Gesetze des Kapitalismus zu identifizieren sucht, allen voran den Trend zu zunehmender
Ungleichheit der personellen Vermögensverteilung, getrieben durch die säkulare Differenz zwischen Realzins und
W ht
Wachstumsrate.
t Pikettys
Pik tt empirische
i i h Analyse
A l
liefert
li f t dabei
d b i eine
i faszinierende
f i i
d Fülle
Füll an wichtigen
i hti
Erkenntnissen.
Ek t i
Sie
Si
leidet aber an drei Schwächen: (1) den für seine Kernthese dünnen statistischen Belegen für die letzten Jahrzehnte,
(2) der zum Teil abwegigen Deutung der verschiedenen Entwicklungsphasen des Kapitalismus und vor allem (3)
der Vernachlässigung des Arbeitsmarktes bei der Bestimmung der Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung. Auch
Pikettys Zukunftsprognosen können nicht überzeugen
überzeugen, weil er wichtige Trends,
Trends die sich derzeit schon abzeichnen –
Knappheit an Arbeitskräften einerseits, Kapitalschwemme andererseits – völlig außer Acht lässt. Pikettys politische
Vorschläge zur massiven Besteuerung von Einkommen, Vermögen sowie Nachlässen und Schenkungen tragen
jakobinische Züge. Ziel ist eine radikale Umverteilung zur Wiederherstellung einer Meritokratie, in der die
Einkommen das Ergebnis persönlicher Leistung sind statt von leistungsunabhängigen Transfers und Glück bestimmt
zu werden. Dabei bleibt unklar, wo die Grenzen der eigenen Leistung genau liegen. Die Vorschläge sind deshalb
weder ökonomisch und sozialphilosophisch überzeugend noch politisch zielführend.
z Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik Vol. 15 (3)
z http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/vwliw/documents/DerHistorizismusdesJakobiners_PWP3-2014.pdf
80
Charles I.
I Jones
z The Macroeconomics
i off Piketty
i
z Since the early 2000s, research by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and their coathors has
revolutionized our understanding of income and wealth inequality. In this paper, I highlight
some of the key empirical facts from this research and comment on how they relate to
macroeconomics and to economic theory more generally. Top inequality is tightly linked to
Pareto distributions.
distributions The paper describes simple mechanisms that give rise to this Pareto
inequality and considers the economic forces that influence top inequality over time and
across countries.
z Beitrag zu einem Symposium im Journal of Economic Perspectives
z http://dosen.narotama.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The-Macroeconomics-of-Piketty.pdf
http://dosen narotama ac id/wp content/uploads/2014/10/The Macroeconomics of Piketty pdf
81
Per Krusell,
Krusell Tony Smith
z Is Piketty's
i
' Second
S
Law off Capitalism"
C i i " Fundamental??
z In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty uses what he calls “the second
f d
fundamental
l law
l off capitalism”
i li ” to predict
di that
h wealth-to-income
lh i
ratios
i are poised
i d to increase
i
dramatically as economies’ growth rates fall during the twenty-first century. This law states
that in the long run the wealth-to-income ratio equals s/g, where s is the economy’s saving
rate and g its growth rate. We argue that this law rests on a theory of saving that is hard to
justify. First, it holds the net saving rate constant as growth falls, driving the gross savings
rate to one as growth goes to zero. Second, it is inconsistent with both the textbook growth
model and the theory of optimal saving: in both of these theories the net saving rate goes to
zero as growthh goes to zero. Third,
Thi d both
b h off these
h
theories
h i provide
id a reasonable
bl fit
fi to observed
b
d
data on gross and net saving rates in the United States, whereas Piketty’s does not. Finally,
contrary to Piketty’s second law, both of these theories predict that wealth-to-income ratios
increase onlyy modestly
y as growth
g
falls.
z n.a.
z http://aida.wss.yale.edu/smith/piketty1.pdf
82
Matthew Rognlie
z A note on Piketty
i
and diminishing
i i i i returns to capital
i
z Capital in the Twenty-First Century predicts a rise in capital’s share of income and the gap r-g
b
between
capital
i l returns andd growth.
h In
I this
hi note, I argue that
h neither
i h outcome iis lik
likely
l given
i
realistically diminishing returns to capital accumulation. Instead—all else equal—more
capital will erode the economywide return on capital. When converted from gross to net
terms, standard empirical estimates of the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor
are well below those assumed in Capital. Piketty (2014)’s inference of a high elasticity from
time series is unsound, assuming a constant real price of capital despite the dominant role of
rising prices in pushing up the capital/income ratio. Recent trends in both capital wealth and
i
income
are driven
di
almost
l
entirely
i l by
b housing,
h i with
i h underlying
d l i mechanisms
h i
quite
i different
diff
from those emphasized in Capital.
z n.a.
z http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf
83
Gregor Semieniuk
z Piketty’s
i
’ Elasticity
i i off Substitution:
S
i i
A Critique
C ii
z This note examines Thomas Piketty's (2014) explanation and prediction of simultaneously
rising capital income ratio and prot share by an elasticity of substitution,σ, greater than one
between labor and capital in an aggregate production function. I review Piketty's elasticity
argument, which relies on a non-standard capital denition. In light of the theory of land rent, I
discuss why the non-standard capital denition is problematic for estimating elasticities.
elasticities For
lack of existing results, I make a simple estimate of σ in the class of constant elasticity of
substitution functions for Piketty's data as well as for a subset of his capital measure that
comes closer to the standard capital denition. The estimation results cast doubt on Piketty's
hypothesis of a σ greater than one.
z Schwartz Center for Economic Policyy Analysis,
y
Workingg Paper
p 2014-8
z http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/scepa/publications/workingpapers/2014/Pikettys_Ela
sticityy_of_Substitution_A_Critique
q _WP_2014_8.pdf
p
84
Jakob Kapeller
z The return off the rentier
i
z Thomas Piketty presents a provocatively entitled book that is as remarkably innovative as it is
politically
li i ll andd socially
i ll important.
i
It
I is
i so for
f severall reasons: Firstly,
Fi l Piketty’s
Pik
’ examination
i i off
the historical development of income and assets is based upon meticulous empirical work
which sheds a completely new light the genesis of wealth, assets and capital. Secondly,
Piketty does not hesitate to attempt at embedding these data
data-driven
driven insights in mainstream
economic theory, thereby delivering numerous crucial arguments for criticizing and
advancing existing theories on the distribution of income and wealth. Thirdly, Piketty
relentlessly demonstrates the political and social consequences of the distributional dynamics
h analyzes.
he
l
In
I the
h very same vein
i he
h suggests a range off clear,
l
consistent
i
andd far-reaching
f
hi
policies aimed at keeping these very dynamics at bay.
z Institute
I tit t for
f Comprehensive
C
h i Analysis
A l i off Economy,
E
Working
W ki Paper
P
No.
N 26 07/2014
z http://www.icae.at/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/wp26.pdf
85
Ordan Bonnet et
et.al.
al
z D
Does h
housing
i capital
it l contribute
t ib t tto iinequality?
lit ? A commentt on Th
Thomas
Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century
z
In his book, Capital
p
in the 21st Century,
y Thomas Pikettyy highlights
g g the risk of an explosion
p
of wealth inequality
q
y
because capital is accumulating faster than income in several countries including the US and European countries
such as France. Our work challenges the conclusions of the author in three steps. First, the author’s result is based
on the rise of only one of the components of capital, namely housing capital, and due to housing prices. In fact,
housing prices have risen faster than rent and income in many countries. It is worth noting that “productive” capital,
excluding
l di housing,
h i has
h only
l risen
i
weakly
kl relative
l i to income
i
over the
h last
l few
f decades.
d d Over
O
the
h longer
l
run, the
h
“productive” capital/income ratio has not increased at all. Second, rent, not housing prices, should matter for the
dynamics of wealth inequality, because rent represents both the actual income of housing capital for landlords and
the dwelling costs saved by “owner-occupiers” (people living in their own houses). Logically, to properly measure
capital the value of housing capital must be corrected by measuring it on actual rental price,
capital,
price and not housing prices
prices.
Third, when we apply this change, we find that the capital/income ratio is actually stable or only mildly higher in
the countries analyzed (France, the US, the UK, and Canada) except for Germany where it rose. These conclusions
are exactly opposite to those found by Thomas Piketty. However, this does not mean that housing prices do not
q
y When housing
g pprices rise, owners of the housing
g capital
p
hold a higher
g
value
contribute to other forms of inequality.
that can be transformed into consumption. It is also more difficult for young adults to become homeowners.
Housing incomes of owners however do not necessarily increase which casts serious doubt on Piketty’s conclusion
of a potential explosive dynamics of inequality based on these trends.
z SciencesPo Department of Economics, Discussion Paper 2014-07
z http://spire.sciencespo.fr/hdl:/2441/30nstiku669glbr66l6n7mc2oq/resources/2014-07.pdf
86
Kieran Allen
z Review:
i
Thomas Piketty,
i
Capital
C i in
i the Twenty First
i Century
C
z
How often have you heard the term ‘fantasy economics' thrown at someone who challenges austerity? Sinn Fein
apparently suffers from this weakness’; so does Richard Boyd Barrett from People Before Profit and indeed
everyone else who dares to oppose the endless cuts in public spending. There are some variations on the theme: ‘But
do your figures add up?' is probably the most common question any left-winger is asked on the Irish media.
’Economically illiterate' is the sniffy put down of those who suggest a tax on wealth. This discourse assumes there is
a technical discipline known as 'Economics' which only a few experts can master. The subject is supposed to be a
science
i
andd the
th solutions
l ti
advocated
d
t d by
b its
it practitioners
titi
are devoid
d id off any class
l or political
liti l bias.
bi This
Thi expertise
ti gives
i
a peculiarly high status to economists in Ireland and elsewhere. The pronouncements of Colm McCarthy in the Irish
Independent or the many appearances of Jim Power on a host of radio and television outlets provide ready-made
arguments for those who support austerity. Lesser-known names such as Seamus Coffey or John Fitzgerald of the
ESRI do commentary based on statistical analysis and are treated with such reverence that they become arbitrators
between varying political alternatives. This is all the more surprising since none of them predicted the crash of the
Celtic Tiger or Great global Recession. In brief, in a more secular society, economists assume that role that priests
used to have. Their pulpits may be the television studio rather than the altars but they talk of a mystical world
unknown to the great mass of people. Whereas the priests spoke of heaven and hell, the economists surround
themselves with the banal world of figures and jargon terminology. But they both dish out a same harsh message of
punishment - for sin, in the case of the priests and for `excess' in the case of the economists.
z Irish Marxist Review Vol. 3 (10)
z http://www.irishmarxistreview.net/index.php/imr/article/view/125
87
Tony Aspromourgos
z Thomas Piketty,
i
the Future off C
Capitalism
i i and the theory off Distribution:
i i i
a
Review Essay
z This essay reviews Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014). The focus is
upon the conceptual framework and theoretical interpretation of the empirical findings
assembled in the book, rather than those empirical findings themselves (which are, in any
case broadly incontestable)
case,
incontestable). The core theoretical logic of the distributional dynamics is
explained and subjected to scrutiny with respect to the theory of distribution in particular, but
also the theory of growth.
z Centro Sraffa, Working Papers No. 7
z http://www.centrosraffa.org/public/bbc90001
http://www.centrosraffa.org/public/bbc90001-bb13-4313-955c-fd9e0ea2df62.pdf
bb13 4313 955c fd9e0ea2df62.pdf
88
Bücher
z Ulrich
l i h Horstmann, Alles,
A
was Si
Sie ü
über Das Kapital
i iim 21.
21 Jahrhundert von
Thomas Piketty wissen müssen
z Joachim Bischoff, Bernhard Müller, Pikettys "Kapital im 21. Jahrhundert" : der
moderne Kapitalismus = eine oligarchische Gesellschaft?
z Heinz-J. Bontrup, Pikettys Krisen-Analyse. Warum die Reichen immer reicher
und die Armen immer ärmer werden
z Stephan Kaufmann, Ingo Stützle, Kapitalismus: die ersten 200 Jahre : Thomas
Pikettys "Das Kapital im 21. Jahrhundert": Einführung, Debatte, Kritik
z Albert F. Reiter, Der Piketty-Hype - "The great U-Turn". Piketty's Kapital und
die neoliberale Vermögenskonzentration
89
Stephanie Flanders
z Capital
C i iin the Twenty-first
fi Century
C
by Thomas Piketty
i
– review
i
z There has been an intense debate about this surprise bestseller. What is the upshot? This is a
VIB – very important book. Nearly everyone agrees about that. But the reasons for its
importance have changed in the months since it was published. At first it was important
because it was a big book on a big subject: a book of grand ambition about inequality, written
not by the latest "thinker"
thinker but a respected academic economist with real numbers to go
with his theory. We hadn't had anything like that in ages. This was the "Piketty as rockstar"
phase, when the book was an "improbable hit" and people wrote breathless articles about the
modern successor to Marx who could crunch the numbers but also quote Balzac,
The Simpsons and The West Wing.
z The Guardian
z http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/17/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-pikettyreview
90
Heidi Moore
z Why is Thomas Piketty's 700-page book a bestseller?
z Thomas Piketty is a French economist whose Capital in the Twenty-First Century has swept
American discourse. Four experts – Brad DeLong, Tyler Cowen, Stephanie Kelton and
Emanuel Derman – take on why that is.
z The Guardian
z http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/21/-sp-thomas-piketty-bestseller-why
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/21/ sp thomas piketty bestseller why
91
RA
R.A.
z Thomas Piketty’s
i
’ “Capital”,
“C i ” summarised
i
in
i four
f
paragraphs
z 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
inequality.
economic policy, toward distributional questions. This newspaper has hailed Mr Piketty as
"the modern Marx" (Karl, that is). But what’s it all about?
z The Economist
z http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains
htt //
it
/bl /
it
l i /2014/05/
it
l i
92
na
n.a.
z A
All men are created unequal - Revisiting
i i i an old argument about the impact
i
off
capitalism
z INEQUALITY is one of the most controversial attributes of capitalism. Early in the industrial
revolution stagnant wages and concentrated wealth led David Ricardo and Karl Marx to
question capitalism’s sustainability. Twentieth-century economists lost interest in
distributional issues amid the “Great
Great Compression”
Compression that followed the second world war.
war But a
modern surge in inequality has new economists wondering, as Marx and Ricardo did, which
forces may be stopping the fruits of capitalism from being more widely distributed.
z “Capital
p
in the Twenty-First
y
Century”
y by
y Thomas Piketty,
y an economist at the Paris School of
Economics, is an authoritative guide to the question. Mr Piketty’s book, which was published
in French in 2013 and will be released in English in March 2014, self-consciously builds on
the work of 19th-century thinkers; his title is an allusion to Marx’s magnum opus. But he
possesses an advantage they lacked: two centuries’
centuries worth of hard data.
data
z The Economist
z http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21592635-revisiting-old-argument-93
about-impact-capitalism-all-men-are-created
Mervyn King
z Capital
C i iin the Twenty-First
i Century
C
by Thomas Piketty,
i
review
i
z Former Bank of England Governer Mervyn King takes on the left-wing French economist
everybody's talking about. Very occasionally a book comes along that changes the way we
think about the world. Thomas Piketty’s new book (a translation of last year’s French edition)
is a publishing sensation that has caused a stir among economists and the commentariat alike.
Does it live up to the hype?
z The Telegraph
z http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10816161/Capital-in-the-TwentyFirst-Century-by-Thomas-Piketty-review.html
94
James K
K. Galbraith
z Kapital
i l for
f the Twenty-First
i Century?
C
?
z Although Thomas Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics, has written a
massive book entitled Capital in the Twenty-First Century, he explicitly (and rather
caustically) rejects the Marxist view. He is in some respects a skeptic of modern mainstream
economics, but he sees capital (in principle) as an agglomeration of physical objects, in line
with the neoclassical theory.
theory And so he must face the question of how to count up capital-asa-quantity.
z DISSENT
z http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twenty-first-century
95
Daniel Shuchman
z Thomas Piketty
i
Revives
i
Marx for
f the 21st
21 Century
C
z An 80% tax rate on incomes above $500,000 is not meant to bring in money for education or
benefits, but ‘to put an end to such incomes’. "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" is Mr.
Piketty's dense exploration of the history of wages and wealth over the past three centuries.
He presents a blizzard of data about income distribution in many countries, claiming to show
that inequality has widened dramatically in recent decades and will soon get dangerously
worse. Whether or not one is convinced by Mr. Piketty's data—and there are reasons for
skepticism, given the author's own caveats and the fact that many early statistics are based on
extremely limited samples of estate tax records and dubious extrapolation—is ultimately of
little consequence. For this book is less a work of economic analysis than a bizarre ideological
screed.
z The Wall Street Journal
z http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303825604579515452952131592
p
j
96
Marc Schieritz
z Ihr da oben, wir
i da unten - Wie
i ein
i dickes
i
Wirtschaftsbuch
i
f
die
i Welt erobert
z Es ist einer der skurrilsten Bestseller in der Geschichte des Buchmarkts. Das Werk: knapp 700
Seiten Wirtschaftslehre. Der Autor: ein linker französischer Wirtschaftsprofessor. Nicht
unbedingt das Material also, aus dem Kassenschlager gemacht sind – und schon gar nicht in
den USA. Trotzdem: Capital in the Twenty-First Century, das monumentale Debüt des Pariser
Ökonomen Thomas Piketty
Piketty, war vergangene Woche das meistverkaufte Buch beim
Onlinehändler Amazon. Piketty ist ein Überraschungserfolg gelungen, eine Art Fifty Shades
of Grey der ökonomischen Literatur.
z Die Zeit
z http://www.zeit.de/2014/19/thomas-piketty-capital-in-the-21-century
htt //
it d /2014/19/th
ik tt
it l i th 21
t
97
Marc Schieritz
z Wer hat, dem wird
i gegeben - Ein
i neues Buch macht Furore: Im Kapitalismus
i i
zählt Herkunft, nicht Leistung. Was kann der Staat tun?
z In Honoré de Balzacs Roman Vater Goriot kommt ein mittelloser, aber ehrgeiziger
Jurastudent namens Eugène de Rastignac nach Paris, um sein Glück zu machen. Dort erteilt
ihm ein Bekannter eine ganz besondere Form der Berufsberatung: Mit ordentlicher Arbeit sei
nicht viel zu holen.
holen Ein Anwalt müsse "10
10 Jahre vegetieren
vegetieren, vor einem Sachwalter dienern,
dienern
den ganzen Justizpalast mit der Zunge ablecken" – und verdiene doch nicht genug, um es an
die Spitze zu schaffen. Es gebe aber einen Ausweg: "Die Mitgift einer reichen Frau." Die
Erzählung spielt im Jahr 1835, doch glaubt man dem angesehenen französischen Ökonomen
Thomas Piketty, dann ist Rastignacs Dilemma heute so aktuell wie damals. In seinem am
kommenden Dienstag erscheinenden monumentalen Werk Capital in the Twenty-First
Century zeichnet Piketty das Bild einer Gesellschaft, in der Herkunft und nicht Leistung über
die soziale Stellung entscheiden und einige wenige immer größere Reichtümer anhäufen.
anhäufen
z Die Zeit
z http://www.zeit.de/2014/11/ungleichheit-reichtum-kapitalismus
98
Robert M.
M Solow
z Thomas Piketty
i
Is Right
i
- Everything
i you need to know about 'Capital
'C i in
i the
Twenty-First Century'
z
z
Income inequality in the United States and elsewhere has been worsening since the 1970s.
1970s The most striking aspect
has been the widening gap between the rich and the rest. This ominous anti-democratic trend has finally found its
way into public consciousness and political rhetoric. A rational and effective policy for dealing with it—if there is
to be one—will have to rest on an understanding of the causes of increasing inequality. The discussion so far has
turned up a number of causal factors: the erosion of the real minimum wage; the decay of labor unions and
collective bargaining; globalization and intensified competition from low-wage workers in poor countries;
technological changes and shifts in demand that eliminate mid-level jobs and leave the labor market polarized
between the highly educated and skilled at the top and the mass of poorly educated and unskilled at the bottom.
Each of these candidate causes seems to capture a bit of the truth. But even taken together they do not seem to
provide a thoroughly satisfactory picture. They have at least two deficiencies. First, they do not speak to the really
dramatic issue: the tendency for the very top incomes—the “1 percent”—to pull away from the rest of society.
Second, they seem a little adventitious, accidental; whereas a forty-year trend common to the advanced economies
of the United States, Europe, and Japan would be more likely to rest on some deeper forces within modern industrial
capitalism Now along comes Thomas Piketty,
capitalism.
Piketty a forty-two-year-old
forty two year old French economist,
economist to fill those gaps and then
some. I had a friend, a distinguished algebraist, whose preferred adjective of praise was “serious.” “Z is a serious
mathematician,” he would say, or “Now that is a serious painting.” Well, this is a serious book
z New Republic
z http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-pikettyreviewed
99
Marc Tracy
z Piketty's
i
' 'Capital':
'C i ' A Hit
i That Was, Wasn't,
' Then Was Again
A i How the French
tome has rocked the tiny Harvard University Press
z U
Until
il this
hi month,
h Harvard
H
d University
U i
i Press
P
had
h d achieved
hi d two notable
bl sales
l successes in
i the
h
past 15 years. Stephen Jay Gould’s Dinosaurs in a Haystack: Reflections on Natural History
and Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age both sold around 60,000 copies in each one’s first year,
making
a g them
e blockbusters
b oc bus e s by HUP’s
U s sc
scholarly
o a y sstandards.
a da ds. Byy co
contrast,
as , Thomas
o as Piketty’s
e ys
Capital in the Twenty-First Century has already sold around 80,000 copies in less than two
months, and is currently sold out. According to Susan Donnelly, sales and marketing director
at the 101-year-old house, that figure does not include an estimated 12,000 e-books sold
( hi h Amazon
(which
A
is
i wisely
i l peddling
ddli for
f a stratospheric
t t h i $21.99),
$21 99) nor th
the 80,000
80 000 copies
i HUP is
i
in the process of printing or the 35,000 it guesses it will print in the very near future. Do the
math, and suddenly you are north of 200,000 books that the house expects to sell in a few
months.
z New Republic
z http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117498/pikettys-capital-sold-out-harvard-pressscrambling
100
Paul Krugman
z Why We’re
’ iin a New Guilded
G i
Age
A
z Thomas Piketty, professor at the Paris School of Economics, isn’t a household name, although
that may change with the English-language publication of his magnificent, sweeping
meditation on inequality, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Yet his influence runs deep. It
has become a commonplace to say that we are living in a second Gilded Age—or, as Piketty
likes to put it,
it a second Belle Époque
Époque—defined
defined by the incredible rise of the “one
one percent
percent.”
But it has only become a commonplace thanks to Piketty’s work. In particular, he and a few
colleagues (notably Anthony Atkinson at Oxford and Emmanuel Saez at Berkeley) have
pioneered statistical techniques that make it possible to track the concentration of income and
wealth deep into the past—back to the early twentieth century for America and Britain, and
all the way to the late eighteenth century for France.
z The New York Review of Books Vol. 61 (8)
z http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/
p
y
y
p
y
g
g
101
Steven Pearlstein
z ‘Capital
‘C i iin the Twenty-first
fi Century’
C
’ by Thomas Piketty
i
z Just when you thought Karl Marx had finally lost all political and economic relevance, a
brilliant French economist has come along to pick up where the German philosopher left off
— correcting for many of Marx’s mistakes, updating his analysis in light of subsequent
experience and unearthing a bounty of modern economic data to support a theory about
capitalism’ss inherent and self-destructive contradictions.
capitalism
contradictions
z The Washington Post
z http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-by-thomaspiketty/2014/03/28/ea75727a-a87a-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html
102
Martin Wolf
z ‘C
‘Capital
i iin the Twenty-First
i Century’,
C
’ by Thomas Piketty
i
- An
A economic,
i
social and political history of the evolution of income and wealth
z French economist Thomas Piketty has written an extraordinarily important book. Openminded readers will surely find themselves unable to ignore the evidence and arguments he
has brought to bear.
z The Financial Times
z http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3GsBguq00
103
Neil Irwin
z Everything
i You Need to Know About
A
Thomas Piketty
i
vs. The Financial
i
i Times
i
z Last Friday afternoon, The Financial Times released an expansive report accusing Thomas
Piketty of doing shoddy analysis of data on wealth inequality for his best-selling book,
“Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” In the six days since, economists and writers around
the world have produced many thousands of words on the controversy. Outsiders have
weighed in on the newspaper
newspaper’ss case
case, the newspaper responded
responded, and Mr
Mr. Piketty
Piketty, on Thursday,
Thursday
provided his first detailed defense. So where do things stand? How much do the criticisms by
The Financial Times hold up, and should “Capital” continue to be viewed, as many reviewers
have argued, as a definitive volume on inequality of income and wealth in advanced nations?
Here, we review the claims and counterclaims and conclusions one can draw about L’Affaire
Piketty.
z The New York Times
z http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/upshot/everything-you-need-to-know-about-thomasp
y
p
y
gy
piketty-vs-the-financial-times.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
104
Thomas B.
B Edsall
z Capitalism
C i i vs. Democracy
z Thomas Piketty’s new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” described by one French
newspaper as a “a political and theoretical bulldozer,” defies left and right orthodoxy by
arguing that worsening inequality is an inevitable outcome of free market capitalism. Piketty,
a professor at the Paris School of Economics, does not stop there. He contends that
capitalism’ss inherent dynamic propels powerful forces that threaten democratic societies
capitalism
societies.
Capitalism, according to Piketty, confronts both modern and modernizing countries with a
dilemma: entrepreneurs become increasingly dominant over those who own only their own
labor. In Piketty’s view, while emerging economies can defeat this logic in the near term, in
the long run, “when pay setters set their own pay, there’s no limit,” unless “confiscatory tax
rates” are imposed.
z http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-democracy.html?
p
y
p
p
y
_r=0
105
Paul Krugman
z Wealth over Work
z It seems safe to say that “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the magnum opus of the
French economist Thomas Piketty, will be the most important economics book of the year —
and maybe of the decade. Mr. Piketty, arguably the world’s leading expert on income and
wealth inequality, does more than document the growing concentration of income in the
hands of a small economic elite
elite. He also makes a powerful case that we’re
we re on the way back to
“patrimonial capitalism,” in which the commanding heights of the economy are dominated
not just by wealth, but also by inherited wealth, in which birth matters more than effort and
talent.
z http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/opinion/krugman-wealth-over-work.html
106
Paul Krugman
z The Piketty
i
Panic
i
z “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the new book by the French economist Thomas
Piketty, is a bona fide phenomenon. Other books on economics have been best sellers, but Mr.
Piketty’s contribution is serious, discourse-changing scholarship in a way most best sellers
aren’t. And conservatives are terrified. Thus James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise
Institute warns in National Review that Mr
Mr. Piketty’s
Piketty s work must be refuted,
refuted because otherwise
it “will spread among the clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all
future policy battles will be waged.” Well, good luck with that. The really striking thing about
the debate so far is that the right seems unable to mount any kind of substantive counterattack
to Mr. Piketty’s thesis. Instead, the response has been all about name-calling — in particular,
claims that Mr. Piketty is a Marxist, and so is anyone who considers inequality of income and
wealth an important issue.
z http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/krugman-the-pikettypanic.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
107
Kathleen Geier, Kate Bahn, Joelle Gamble,
Zillah Eisenstein, Heather Boushey
z How Gender
G
Changes
C
Piketty’s
i
’ ‚Capital
C i in
i the twenty-First
i Century’
C
’
z In this installment of The Curve, we asked our contributors to examine Thomas Piketty’s
Capital in the Twenty-First Century. If economic inequality continues to soar, as Piketty says
it will, and inherited wealth plays a growing role in our economy, in what ways does that
affect women specifically? And what weaknesses arise in Piketty’s own analysis due to the
absence of gender and race from his book? Where can we
we, as feminists
feminists, build on Piketty’s
Piketty s
analysis?
z The Nation
z http://www.thenation.com/blog/180895/how-gender-changes-pikettys-capital-twenty-firstcentury#
t #
108
John Cassidy
z Piketty’s
i
’ Inequality
i Story
S
in
i Six
Si Charts
C
z In this week’s magazine, I’ve got a lengthy piece about “Capital in the Twenty-first Century,”
a new book about rising inequality by Thomas Piketty, a French economist, that is sparking a
lot of comment and debate. (Brad DeLong has a useful summary of some early reviews.) I’ll
go further into that discussion in future posts, but first I thought it might be useful to portray
the gist of Piketty
Piketty’ss story in a series of charts.
charts
z The New Yorker
z http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequality-story-in-six-charts
109
John Cassidy
z Forces off Divergence
i
- Is surging
i inequality
i
i endemic
i to capitalism?
i i ?
z In the stately world of academic presses, it isn’t often that advance orders and publicity for a
book prompt a publisher to push forward its publication date. But that’s what Belknap, an
imprint of Harvard University Press, did for “Capital in the Twenty-first Century,” a sweeping
account of rising inequality by the French economist Thomas Piketty. Reviewing the French
edition of Piketty’s
Piketty s book
book, which came out last year
year, Branko Milanovic
Milanovic, a former senior
economist at the World Bank, called it “one of the watershed books in economic thinking.”
The Economist said that it could change the way we think about the past two centuries of
economic history. Certainly, no economics book in recent years has received this sort of
attention. Months before its American publication date, which was switched from April to
March, it was already the subject of lively online discussion among economists and other
commentators.
z The New Yorker
z http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/31/forces-of-divergence
110
Kyle Smith
z Six
Si Ways Thomas Piketty's
i
' 'C
'Capital'
i ' Isn't
' Holding
i Up to Scrutiny
S
i
z Dubbed the “rock-star economist,” France’s Thomas Piketty has topped the Amazon.com
bestseller list with the surprise blockbuster book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” which
argues that because the return on capital must be greater than overall growth, the rich are
destined to hog an ever-increasing proportion of the economic pie.
z Forbes Magazine
z http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/05/01/six-ways-thomas-pikettys-capital-isntholding-up-to-scrutiny/
111
Benjamin Kunkel
z Paupers and Richlings
i i
z Capitalist societies today exhibit ‘an arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and
incomes’ as bad as or worse than in the 1930s, when Keynes declared this one of ‘the
outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live’. (The other – not unrelated – was
the failure to achieve full employment.) Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century is an
intelligent ambitious and above all informative treatment of the problem.
intelligent,
problem This accounts for
much of the unusual excitement surrounding a lengthy, often dry economic tract. But there’s
something else to the ‘Piketty bubble’: he is one of the very few contemporary economists
eager to revive the old-fashioned spirit of political economy.
z London Review of Books Vol. 36 (13)
z http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n13/benjamin-kunkel/paupers-and-richlings
112
Ryan Cooper
z Why everyone is
i talking
i about Thomas Piketty's
i
' Capital
C i l in
i the
h Twenty-First
i
Century
z The French economist's magnum opus explains the history of income inequality — and
represents a real threat to the reign of the 1 percent. The English translation of French
economist Thomas Piketty's magnum opus Capital in the Twenty-First Century is finally out,
and it
it'ss made an enormous splash
splash. It's
It s a brilliant
brilliant, surprisingly readable work that synthesizes a
staggering amount of careful research to make the case that income inequality is no accident.
Indeed, Piketty argues that it is a feature of capitalism itself — unless governments take
action to rein in capitalism's excesses.
z The Week
z http://theweek.com/article/index/258666/why-everyone-is-talking-about-thomas-pikettyscapital-in-the-twenty-first-century
113
Joe Pinsker
z What Can
C Explain
i the S
Success off Piketty's
i
' Capital?
C i ? - Speculating
S
i about the
conditions that produced an unexpected bestseller
z On Tax Day in 2010, Andrew Boyd helped launch a campaign meant to raise awareness about
economic inequality. In naming the movement, Boyd and his fellow activists wanted
something that crystallized the lopsided-ness of the situation, and they settled on “The Other
98 Percent.” The campaign got some social-media traction as it began staging protests. But its
cultural
l
l reachh paled
l d in
i comparison
i
to that
h off Occupy
O
Wall
W ll Street,
S
which
hi h came into
i
being
b i just
j a
year and a half later. Occupy’s messaging—“We are the 99 percent”—is only one percentage
point more extreme than that of Boyd’s movement, yet Occupy took off. Why? Since the
movements didn’t
didn t differ much in their substance, was it something in 2011
2011'ss cultural
atmosphere? Some people are now wondering the same thing about Thomas Piketty’s Capital
in the Twenty-First Century, a book whose U.S. popularity this summer was so intense that no
dependent-clause anecdote could capture it. While the success of Piketty’s book on some
l l is
level
i owedd to the
h work’s
k’ inherent
i h
quality
li andd rigor,
i
three
h Nobel
N b l Prize
P i winners
i
have
h
done
d
extensive research on similar topics without stirring up the same craze.
z The Atlantic
z http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/what-can-explain-the-success-ofpikettys-capital/380667/
114
Michael Kinsley
z The Impossible
i
Dream
z Amid rising concern about income inequality, Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First
Century has become an unlikely best-seller—and its French author an economic rock star. Is
his proposal for wealth re-distribution too radical, or not radical enough? Let’s do the math...
z Vanity Fair
z http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/07/thomas-piketty-wealth-money-redistribution
p
y
p
y
y
115
Kathleen Geier
z Taking
i on the Heiristocracy
i i
- History
i
shows that growth alone won’t
’ stop vast
economic inequality.
z In his important new book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, French economist Thomas
Piketty asserts that one of his chief goals is “putting the distributional question back at the
heart of economic analysis.” As he notes, today the concentration of wealth has soared to
levels that have not been seen in over a century
century. In recent years
years, the issue of economic
inequality has moved out of the seminar rooms to become an issue of broad public concern.
We’ve heard it in the rallying cry of the Occupy movement—“We are the 99 percent!”—and
in Pope Francis’s thundering denunciations of capitalist excess and “trickle-down”
economics. We’ve seen it in the surprising electoral success of economic populists like
Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio. Late last year, President Barack Obama gave a speech
devoted to the subject, and the Democratic Party is pushing economic inequality as its major
campaign theme for the 2014 midterm elections.
elections
z Washington Monthly
z http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/on_political_books/ta
116
king_on_the_heiristocracy049299.php?page=all
Daniel Stelter
z Piketty-Buch
i
"C i iin the Twenty-first
"Capital
fi Century"C
" Die
i neue Bibel
i
der
Umverteilungs-Politiker
z Thomas Pikettys Buch ist schon jetzt ein Welterfolg - und die perfekte Vorlage für
Wirtschaftspolitiker. Eine groß angelegte Umverteilung der Vermögen wird immer
wahrscheinlicher.
z Manager Magazin
z http://www.manager-magazin.de/politik/artikel/debatte-um-buch-von-thomas-piketty-a966722.html
117
Freddy Gray
z Ten handy phrases for
f bluffing
ffi on Thomas Piketty’s
i
’ ‘Capital
‘C i in
i the TwentyFirst Century’
z How do you sound clever and au courant in 2014? Easy. You talk knowingly about Capital in
the 21st Century, the seminal, magisterial, definitive, landmark, pick-your-coverblurbadjective book by French academic Thomas Piketty.
z The Spectator
z http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/a-blaggers-guide-to-thomas-pikettys-capitalin-the-twenty-first-century/
118
na
n.a.
z Schwere
S
Vorwürfe
ü f gegen den neuen S
Star-Ökonom
Ö
z Der französische Ökonom Thomas Piketty sorgt mit seinem neuen Buch über Ungleichheit
für viel Wirbel. Sogar Amerikas Finanzminister hat mit ihm gesprochen. Nun behauptet die
„Financial Times“, dass er viele Fehler mit seinen Daten gemacht hat.
z Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
z http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftswissen/starke-kritik-der-financial-times-anp
thomas-piketty-12955867.html
119
Morgan Kelly
z How the rich
i got richer:
i
Capital
C i in
i the Twenty-First
i Century
C
by Thomas
Piketty
z Review: Thomas Piketty shows that inequality in the West is at levels not seen since the
Roaring Twenties.
z The Irish Times
z http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/how
http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/how-the-rich-got-richer-capital-in-the-twenty-firstthe rich got richer capital in the twenty first
century-by-thomas-piketty-1.1786787
120
Nikolaus Piper
z Der Meisterdenker
i
– Thomas Piketty
i
über
ü
Ungleichheit
i
i
z Führt Kapitalismus wirklich immer zu mehr Ungleichheit? Der Ökonom Thomas Piketty und
sein Buch "Kapital im 21. Jahrhundert" wühlen Amerika auf. Ein packendes Buch - aber
stimmt auch seine Weltformel?
z Süddeutsche Zeitung
z http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/thomas-piketty-ueber-ungleichheit-der-meisterdenkerp
p
y
g
1.1966426
121
Megan McArdle
z Piketty's
y Capital:
p
An Economist's Inequality
q
y Ideas Are All the Rage
g
z A specter is haunting Europe and the U.S.—the specter of plutocracy. In Britain, Deputy
Prime Minister Nick Clegg has suggested the moment has arrived to consider a wealth tax. In
France which already has one
France,
one, plans to ease its bite were recently canceled.
canceled Even in the more
timid precincts of Washington, you cannot swing a V for Vendetta mask without hitting a
think tank panel on inequality. Everyone, it seems, is worried we are shortly headed for a
world in which a handful of rich people will own everything, and the rest are forced to rent
their air and water from Mark Zuckerberg. Small wonder, then, that French economist
Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century has ignited an ideological fervor
reminiscent of a Paris mob at the gates of the Bastille. The title seems to be a puckish homage
to Karl Marx’s
Marx s Capital.
Capital Although Piketty disdains Marx’s
Marx s unsystematic thinking,
thinking they share a
core concern about wealth run amok or rather too much concentrated in one place. Piketty
speaks for a lot of people when he voices a dark half-prophecy that the forces of capital
accumulation will leave us with a society radically less equal, less mobile, perhaps even less
democratic. As he puts it, “The past devours the future.”
z Businessweek
z http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-29/pikettys-capital-economists-inequalityideas-are-all-the-rage
122
Wolf Lotter
z Freibier
i i für
fü Kapitalismuskritiker
i i
ii
z Thomas Piketty will erklären, warum ein Kapitalismus, dem der Staat nicht starke Zügel
anlegt, zur Ungleichheit führt. In den USA glauben viele, dass Piketty der Einstein der
Ökonomie ist. Doch sein Wälzer ist eher eine Art Freibier für kapitalismuskritische
Bildungsbürger.
z WDR 5
z http://www.wdr5.de/sendungen/politikum/rezensionen/piketty100.html
123
Kevin A.
A Hassett
z Remarks on Thomas Piketty's
i
' "Capital
"C i in
i the Twenty-First
i Century"
C
"
z In his latest book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century," Thomas Piketty argues that when
the rate of return on capital exceeds economic growth, there is increasing wealth
concentration. This dynamic was held at bay during the 20th century by the world wars
(which destroyed significant portions of capital stock) and population growth. However, such
forces may not occur in the 21st century
century, which Piketty argues could lead to an explosion in
wealth disparity. He projects that this disparity could reach or surpass 19th century oligarchic
levels and result in political and social upheaval. He proposes a global wealth tax as the
solution to rising inequality.
z American Enterprise Institute
z http://www.aei.org/speech/economics/remarks-on-thomas-pikettys-capital-in-the-twenty-firstcentury/
124
Cory Doctorow
z Thomas Piketty's
i
' Capital
C i in
i the 21st
21 Century
C
z Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century is a bestselling economics tome whose
combination of deep, careful presentation of centuries' worth of data, along with an equally
careful analysis of where capitalism is headed has ignited a global conversation about
inequality, tax, and policy. Cory Doctorow summarizes the conversation without making you
read 696 pages (though you should).
should)
z boingboing.net
z http://boingboing.net/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-t.html
125
Bill Gates
z Why Inequality
i Matters
z A 700-page treatise on economics translated from French is not exactly a light summer read—
even for someone with an admittedly high geek quotient. But this past July, I felt compelled
to read Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century after reading several reviews
and hearing about it from friends. I’m glad I did. I encourage you to read it too, or at least a
good summary
summary, like this one from The Economist.
Economist Piketty was nice enough to talk with me
about his work on a Skype call last month. As I told him, I agree with his most important
conclusions, and I hope his work will draw more smart people into the study of wealth and
income inequality—because the more we understand about the causes and cures, the better. I
also said I have concerns about some elements of his analysis, which I’ll share below.
z gatesnotes.com
g
z http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capital-in-21st-Century-Review
126
Andrew Leigh
z A
An A
Australian
i take on Thomas Piketty’s
i
’ ‘C
‘Capital
i iin the Twenty-first
fi Century’
C
’
- Is the growth of inequality inevitable?
z Where others had analysed inequality over a generation, Atkinson wanted to look back a
century. He had been inspired by a young French researcher, Thomas Piketty, who had carried
out a study of long-run inequality in his home country. Piketty’s idea was that taxation and
population statistics could be combined with national accounts to examine the top end of the
wealth distribution, such as the top 1%. Piketty and Emmanuel Saez of the University of
California, Berkeley, went on to apply the methodology to the United States, where they
showed that the income share of the top 1% had doubled since 1980. Without Piketty and
Saez, the Occupy movement’s slogan “We are the 99%” might never have been born.
z The Monthlyy
z http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/june/1401544800/andrew-leigh/australian-taket o as p ettys cap ta twe ty st ce tu y
thomas-pikettys-capital-twenty-first-century
127
Gideon Polya
z Review:
i
'Capital
'C i in
i the twenty-first
fi century'' by Thomas Piketty
i
z “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by French economist Professor Thomas Piketty (Paris
School of Economics, France) is a very readable, information-rich, must-read book about the
basis of capital accumulation inequality past, present and future. In short, notwithstanding the
expansion of democracy and social welfare in the 20th century, the world’s wealth is
overwhelmingly concentrated the hands of the rich.
rich Thus,
Thus according to Oxfam “[Its]
[Its] report,
report
Working for the Few, shows that the wealth of the world is divided in two: almost half going
to the richest one per cent; the other half to the remaining 99 per cent”. Professor Piketty
argues in this important book that current wealth inequality endangers democracy and
economic sustainability and proposes a progressive annual wealth tax to address the danger.
z MWC News
z http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/42594-thomas-piketty.html
128
Ananymous
z Capital
C i iin the twenty-first
fi century - Thomas Piketty
i
z Thomas Piketty’s new book, Capital in the 21st Century, painstakingly details the dynamics
of wealth and income inequality throughout the last two centuries, and offers a somewhat
grim picture of the future of economic inequality. Reproduced for reference, as we disagree
with its conclusions.
z libcom.org
z https://libcom.org/library/capital-twenty-first-century
129
Justin Fox
z Piketty’s
i
’ “Capital,”
“C i ” in
i a Lot Less than 696 Pages
z It was only published in English a few weeks ago, but French economist Thomas Piketty’s
Capital in the Twenty-First Century has already become inescapable. The reasons start with
the confluence of subject matter and author. There’s a lot of interest in economic inequality
these days, and research conducted over the past 15 years by Piketty, a professor at the Paris
School of Economics
Economics, is a big reason why
why. In the U
U.S.,
S Piketty and UC Berkeley’s
Berkeley s Emmanuel
Saez transformed a tame discussion of income quintiles and deciles into a sharp debate about
the skyrocketing incomes of the 1% — and the mind-boggling gains of the 0.1% and
0.01% — by gathering and publishing income tax data that nobody had bothered with before.
Piketty was behind similar projects in France, Britain, Japan, and other countries.
z Harvard Business Review – Blogg Network
z http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/04/pikettys-capital-in-a-lot-less-than-696-pages/
130
na
n.a.
z “Kapital
“
i im
i 21.
21 Jahrhundert”” von Thomas Piketty
i
z Thomas Piketty hat mit seinem viel diskutierten Buch „Capital in the Twenty-First Century“
die langfristige Entwicklung von Einkommen und Vermögen in mehreren westlichen Ländern
untersucht. Mit einer umfangreichen Datensammlung weist er nach: wenn Profite und
Einkommen größer sind als das Wachstum der Wirtschaft, verstärkt sich die gesellschaftliche
Ungleichheit Wir dokumentieren die Debatte um das Buch.
Ungleichheit.
Buch
z Labournet Germany
z http://www.labournet.de/politik/wipo/wipo-deb/kapitalismuskritik/piketty/
131
Mick Brooks
z Review:
i
Thomas Piketty
i
– ‘Capital
‘C i iin the twenty-first
fi century’’
z Piketty’s book gives the appearance of a monumental work, surveying the development of
capitalism over centuries. Marshalling extensive data he shows a disturbing growth of
inequality in wealth and income in modern capitalism. Piketty outlines what he calls “the
central contradiction of capitalism”: “The overall conclusion of this study is that a market
economy based on private property
property, if left to itself…
itself contains powerful forces of divergence,
divergence
which are potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on
which they are based” (p. 571).
z socialistproject.org
z htt
http://www.socialistproject.org/debate/review-thomas-piketty-capital-in-the-twenty-first//
i li t j t
/d b t / i th
ik tt
it l i th t
t fi t
century/
132
Alan Jenkins
z Thomas Piketty
i
versus capital,
i
Jane Austen
A
in
i Adlestrop,
A
Civilized
Ci i i
Kenneth
Clark, and much more
z On both sides of the Atlantic, the return on stocks or investments has continued to rise,
economic growth has been slow or non-existent, and inequality – between the extremely
wealthy, the very wealthy and the “capacious” middle, and everyone else – has become ever
greater For Thomas Piketty the situation in Europe is redolent of the belle époque,
greater.
époque and
Duncan Kelly, our reviewer of Piketty’s “riveting and bestselling” history, reminds us that it
took a “brutal reordering” – the two world wars – to achieve a “recalibrated capitalism” and
the creation of the social state. Piketty’s analysis has had its critics on both Left and Right;
according to Dr Kelly his response is “intellectually devastating”, while his contention that
capital inequality has “dispossessed us of our democratic sovereignty” is something we
should all care about.
z The Times Literary Supplement
z http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1426505.ece
133
Jordan Weissmann
z No, Mainstream
i
Economists
i Did
i Not Just Reject
j Thomas Piketty’s
i
’ Big
i Theory
z Did the economics profession just resoundingly reject Thomas Piketty’s most famous theory?
You might have thought so if you were hanging around Twitter yesterday afternoon.
afternoon Every so
often, the University of Chicago’s Initiative on Global Markets asks a panel of top economists
to weigh in on hot public policy issues, such as the effect of stimulus spending, whether Uber
and Lyft are good for consumers, or if the minimum wage kills jobs. It's a way of gauging
mainstream
i
opinion
i i in
i the
h field.
fi ld On Tuesday,
d it
i released
l
d a poll
ll on Piketty’s
ik
trademark
d
k
argument that inequality will increase when the return on capital exceeds the rate of economic
growth, shorthanded as r>g. Specifically, it asked economists whether they agreed or
disagreed with the following statement: "The
The most powerful force pushing towards greater
wealth inequality in the US since the 1970s is the gap between the after-tax return on capital
and the economic growth rate.” Or to simplify: Does Piketty’s theory explain why the wealth
gap has been rising for the past 40 years? Overwhelmingly, the panel’s answer was no, with
only
l one out 36 panelists
li agreeing
i with
i h the
h statement.
z slate.com
z http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/10/15/piketty_igm_forum_economists_did_not_j
134
ust_reject_capital_in_the_21st_century.html
John Palmer
z Book review:
i
Capital
C i in
i the Twenty-First
i Century
C
by Thomas Piketty
i
z John Palmer argues that Piketty's bestseller presents a challenge to even the most blinkered of
defenders of the present neo-liberal order.
z redpepper.org
p pp
g
z http://www.redpepper.org.uk/book-review-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-by-thomasp
piketty/
y
135
Kate Ward
z Capital
C i iin the Twenty First
i Century
C
(2/2):
(2/2) Piketty
i
and CST
CS
z This is the second of two posts reviewing Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First
Century and pointing out why it is of interest to those concerned with religious ethics and
political theology. In the first installment, I summarized Piketty’s findings on the reality of
inequality today and the distinction between income from labor and investments, with its
implications for justice in societies.
societies In this post,
post I examine some of Piketty
Piketty’ss broader
conclusions.
z Political Theology Today
z http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-22-piketty-and-cstk t
kate-ward/
d/
136
Knox Peden
z The abstractions
i
off history
i
z Near the end of the introduction to Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty
writes: ‘In my mind, this book is as much a work of history as of economics.’ In the
commentary that has surrounded the book’s meteoric appearance, this has emerged as a
predominant theme. Piketty’s work heralds the return of political economy as the centerpiece
of economic analysis and
and, along with it
it, the historical perspective such an analysis demands.
demands
The mathematical formulae he studied and produced in his professional youth have, in his
view, led economics astray, condemning it to serve as an idle abstraction at best and an
apology for predatory neoliberal practices at worst.
z Sydney Review of Books
z http://www.sydneyreviewofbooks.com/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty/
137
Curtis Dubay
Dubay, Salim Furth
z Si
Six Demonstrably False C
Claims
i In Thomas Piketty’s
i
’ Theory Of Wealth - The
best critiques of 'Capital' show that most of the links in Thomas Piketty’s
argument are broken
z Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” became the most talked-about and
most critiqued economics book of 2014 before academic readers had a chance to finish the
b k When
book.
Wh they
th did,
did many responded
d d with
ith rebuttals
b tt l that
th t cutt directly
di tl to
t the
th core off Piketty’s
Pik tt ’
argument.
z thefederalist.com
h f d li
z http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/six-demonstrably-false-claims-in-thomas-pikettys-theoryof-wealth/
138
Joseph E.
E Stiglitz
z Democracy in
i the Twenty-First
i Century
C
z The reception in the United States, and in other advanced economies, of Thomas Piketty’s
recent book Capital in the Twenty-First Century attests to growing concern about rising
inequality. His book lends further weight to the already overwhelming body of evidence
concerning the soaring share of income and wealth at the very top.
z projectsyndicate.org
z http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/joseph-e--stiglitz-blames-rising-inequality-onan-ersatz-form-of-capitalism-that-benefits-only-the-rich
139
Noah Millman
z Piketty
i
is
i the Anti-Marx
A i
z Marx’s political and economic program has been deservedly out of fashion for a third of a
century but, as if to declare a generational swing of the pendulum, this year’s most talkedabout big economic book consciously echoes its 19th-century antecedent, right from the title.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by French economist Thomas Piketty, appears to update
Marx’ss analysis for our own era and to put the question of the distribution of wealth back in
Marx
the center of economic and political analysis. But Piketty’s doorstop book is very different
from the one Marx wrote, almost its opposite both methodologically and in its implicit
politics.
z theamericanconservative.com
z http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/piketty-is-the-anti-marx/
140
Ronald Bailey
z Jonah Goldberg's
G
' Excellent Take-Down off Piketty's
i
' Capital
C i l in
i the
h Twenty-First
i
Century
z New York Times columnist and economics Nobelist Paul Krugman showered encomiums on
French economist Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century calling it a
"magnificent, sweeping meditation on inequality" and "an awesome work." While noting
some flaws
flaws, the Washington Post
Post'ss financial reporter Steven Pearlstein nevertheless hailed the
book as "an intellectual tour de force, a triumph of economic history." Timothy Shenk at The
Nation gushed, "Stands a fair chance of becoming the most influential work of economics yet
published in our young century." And these are just a three of the plethora of over-the-top
accolades that can be gleaned from the reviews cited on the book's Amazon page.
z reason.com
z http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/24/jonah-goldberg-excellent-take-down-of-pi
141
Curtis Dubay
Dubay, Salim Furth
z Understanding
i Thomas Piketty
i
and his
i Critics
C ii
z Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a treatise on how wealth inequality
evolves in capitalistic economies. Piketty uses data stretching back to the 18th century to
describe the historical evolution of wealth and inequality, proposes a model that matches the
data, and uses that model to predict rising wealth inequality in the 21st century. He
recommends punitive taxes on high incomes and wealth to prevent the scenario that he
predicts. However, the best critiques of Piketty have shown that most of the links in his
argument are broken. Piketty’s model does not match his data as well as he claims. His
prediction of permanently rising wealth inequality rests on two implausible modeling
assumptions. And his recommendation of punitive taxes is based on the glib assumption that
capital accumulation is unimportant for wage growth, an assumption at odds with the data and
even with his own model. As a result, almost nothing in Capital in the Twenty-First Century
can be applied usefully to policymaking.
policymaking
z The Heritage Foundation
z http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/understanding-thomas-piketty-and-hiscritics
142

Capital in the Twenty

Transcription

Similar documents

Überblick über erbrechtliche Fragen mit internationalem Bezug zu

Nr. 5 / April 2012 - Rosa-Luxemburg

„Demokratie Jetzt!“, Bremen, 11. November 2011

Karl Winnacker - Aventis Foundation

Kreis Steinfurt in Zahlen-Februar 2015 - Wirtschaftsförderungs

Die US-Subprime-Hypothekenmarktkrise

The Spitzer Amphora at Bryn Mawr College

Materialensammlung zum Krieg im Kosovo / Ex-Jugoslawien

Presseinformation

Wirtschaft in Zahlen 2001, Kap. 3 - Umwelt

Einführung in die Mikroökonomie Produktion und die Kosten der

Fondsname und Schiffstypen mit Anzahl