T. Piketty - "Capital in the 21st century"

[Budja]

Dobar detaljan review. Ko je autor?

[Prospero]

nemam pojma, 1 furunaš™, znam da je francuz i mislim da je ekonomista. pratim taj blog/forum neko vreme, čini mi se sasvim ok generalno.

[keksi krem]

U pitanju je Cyrille Viossat, lik je rodom iz Pariza, zavrsio je X, ENPC (Ponts) i moguce da je u Londonu isto pohadjao neku biznis skolu, znam da tamo sada zivi...mislim da ima oko 38-40 godina...

 

Veoma pametan i sposoban covek, ranije je radio za francuski Telekom, a sada valjda ima neku svoju firmu za konsalting...ipak jos nije unovcio svoje znanje onoliko koliko bi trebao, ali ima vremena...

[Prospero]

idi bre

[Turnbull]

 

How to Write a Marxist Critique of Thomas Piketty Without Actually Reading the Book

5.2.14

by Zachary Levenson

 

Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a long book, and you just don’t have time in your busy schedule to finish it and formulate a materialist critique. We’ve got you covered.

1.  

   Be sure to emphasize that Piketty‘s conception of capital differs radically from Marx’s.

2.  

   Note that his model is fundamentally at odds with the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.

3.  

   Point out that his solution is openly reformist, and besides, would require worker militancy on a scale not witnessed in nearly a century.

4.  

   Something something law of value something.

5.  

   Okay, inequality. But then point out that he doesn’t explain it!

6.  

   Mention in an aside his affiliation to Ségolène Royale and the PS.

7.  

   Feign astonishment that people care now given that he simply codifies empirically what we already knew.

8.  

   Lament his conflation of finance and industrial capitals.

9.  

   Claim that you are going to buy it, though, as “the data will be useful.”

[MayDay]

Haaajde i ti pocni da citas! I Darkec!

[Budja]

Rogof.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/kenneth-rogoff-says-that-thomas-piketty-is-right-about-rich-countries--but-wrong-about-the-world#pMO0V4qLhgICbqzY.01

 

 

Where Is the Inequality Problem?

• Tweet395
• Share632
• Share21
• 8
• 2
•  

CAMBRIDGE – Reading Thomas Piketty’s influential new book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, one might conclude that the world has not been this unequal since the days of robber barons and kings. That is odd, because one might conclude from reading another excellent new book, Angus Deaton’s The Great Escape (which I recently reviewed), that the world is more equal than ever.

Which view is right? The answer depends on whether one looks only at countries individually or at the world as a whole.

The overarching fact in Deaton’s book is that over the last few decades, several billion people in the developing world, particularly in Asia, have escaped truly desperate levels of poverty. The same machine that has increased inequality in rich countries has leveled the playing field globally for billions. Looking from afar, and giving, say, an Indian the same weight as an American or a Frenchman, the last 30 years have been among the greatest in human history for improving the lot of the poor.

Piketty’s brilliant book documents within-country inequality, with the main focus being on the rich world. Much of the cultural groundswell surrounding his book has come from people who view themselves as middle class within their own countries, but who are upper middle class or even rich by global standards.

There are various arcane technical debates surrounding the facts that Piketty has established over the past 15 years with his co-author Emmanuel Saez. But I find their results persuasive, especially given that other authors, using completely different methods, have reached similar conclusions. Brent Neiman and Loukas Karabarbounis of the University of Chicago, for example, argue that labor’s share of GDP has been declining globally since the 1970’s.

However, Piketty and Saez do not really offer a model; nor does this new book. And the lack of a model, combined with a focus on the world’s upper-middle-class countries, matters a lot when it comes to policy prescriptions. Would Piketty’s followers be nearly as enthusiastic about his proposed progressive global wealth tax if it were aimed at correcting the huge disparities between the richest countries and the poorest, instead of between those who are well off by global standards and the ultra-wealthy?

Piketty argues that capitalism is unfair. Wasn’t colonialism unfair, too? In any event, the idea of a global wealth tax is replete with credibility and enforcement problems, aside from being politically implausible.

Though Piketty is right that returns to capital have increased in the last few decades, he is too dismissive of the wide-ranging debate among economists concerning the causes. For example, if the main driver is the massive influx of Asian labor into globalized trade markets, the growth model put forth by the Nobel laureate economist Robert Solow suggests that eventually capital stocks will adjust and the wage rate will rise. Retirements from an aging labor force will eventually drive up wages as well. If, on the other hand, labor’s share of income is falling because of the inexorable rise of automation, downward pressures on that share will continue, as I discussed in the context of artificial intelligence a few years ago.

Fortunately, there are much better ways to address rich-country inequality while still fostering long-term growth in demand for products from developing countries. For example, a shift to a relatively flat consumption tax (with a large deductible for progressivity) would be a far simpler and more effective way to tax past wealth accumulation, especially if citizens’ tax home can be linked to the locale where their income was earned.

A progressive consumption tax is relatively efficient and does not distort savings decisions as much as today’s income taxes do. Why try to move to an improbable global wealth tax when alternatives are available that are growth friendly, raise significant revenue, and can be made progressive through a very high exemption.

In addition to a global wealth tax, Piketty recommends an 80% marginal tax rate on income for the United States. Though I strongly believe that the US needs more progressive taxation, particularly of the top 0.1%, I don’t understand why he assumes that an 80% rate would not cause significant distortions, especially as this assumption contradicts a large body of work by the Nobel laureates Thomas Sargent and Edward Prescott.

There are many practical policies that can be adopted to reduce inequality, in addition to a progressive consumption tax. Focusing on the US, Jeffery Frankel of Harvard University has suggested the elimination of payroll taxes for low-income workers, a cut in deductions for high-income workers, and higher inheritance taxes. Universal pre-school education would enhance long-term growth, as would a much greater emphasis on lifetime adult education (my addition), possibly via online courses. Carbon taxes would help mitigate global warming while raising considerable revenues.

In accepting Piketty’s premise that inequality matters more than growth, one needs to remember that many developing-country citizens rely on rich-country growth to help them escape poverty. The first problem of the twenty-first century remains to help the dire poor in Africa and elsewhere. By all means, the elite 0.1% should pay much more in taxes, but let us not forget that when it comes to reducing global inequality, the capitalist system has had an impressive three decades.

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/kenneth-rogoff-says-that-thomas-piketty-is-right-about-rich-countries--but-wrong-about-the-world#GvGJQdT82umCjoxa.99

[Kampokei]

Poceh sa citanjem, trenutno na 6% (Kindle). Svidja mi se stil, naznake erudicije i napusavanje americkih ekonomista. Za bilo kakve druge utiske je jos rano.

[Budja]

Poceh sa citanjem, trenutno na 6% (Kindle). Svidja mi se stil, naznake erudicije i napusavanje americkih ekonomista. Za bilo kakve druge utiske je jos rano.

 

To.

Obe karakteristike ukazuju na premestanje profesije iz ekonomiste u intelektualca. Francuskog.

[Zaz_pi]

Budjo, u kojem delu knjige ih tacno napusava i kako?

Edited May 10, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Budja]

Budjo, u kojem delu knjige ih tacno napusava i kako?

 

Ima nesto o tome kako modeli sluze sami sebi, ne znam u kom delu, scond hand source iz kritika.

Kampokei je na to naisao.

Moze on da napise.

 

Ja jos nisam nasao na "trafici" pdf, nemam kindle.

[Zaz_pi]

Nema potrebe da pise. Knjiga je velikim delom izvor gomile istorijsko-ekonomskih podataka i sagledava evoluciju kapitala i bogatstva iz razlicitih uglova u poslednjih 200 godina. Samo iz toga razloga je treba procitati. O njegovim stavovima po pitanju resavanja problema prevelike koncetracije bogatstva kod malog broja ljudi nekom drugom prilikom.

[Kampokei]

Ovaj moj utisak je prilicno irelevantan u smislu vaznosti knjige. Ali, jbg, stil i erudicija mogu da budu bitni za motivaciju da zavrsim sa citanjem.

 

A, da, otprilike tako kako je Budja i napisao. U knjizi to sve pise u uvodu, pre Part One. On je bio prodidji koji se po vlastitim recima bavio prilicno apstraktnim modelima, onda sa 22 otisao na MIT, ostao tri godine i radio slicne stvari, ali da je to sve vreme imao utisak "so what"? I, kao, nije mu se dopala arogancija sa kojom se u Americi ekonomisti ophode prema drugim drustvenim disciplinama (istinabog, ja bih rekao ponekad i jedni prema drugima). I, naravno, nije izdrzao da ne bude Francuz vise nego sto je potrebno, pa je napisao da su za njega licno Levi-Strauss i Bourdieu veci od Kuznetsa i Solowa

[hazard]

Meni je malo čudna ta fiksacija jednakošću. Bitnije mi je da vidim podatak da o nekakvom ,,apsolutnom" napretku. Hoću reći, ako se moj standard za neki period udvostruči ili utrostruči, baš me briga što se nekom hiperbogatašu upetostručio i udesetostručio. Međutim, ukoliko moj stagnira ili opada a njegov raste, to me već brine...

[Otto Katz]

Međutim, ukoliko moj stagnira ili opada a njegov raste, to me već brine...

Pa zar nije upravo to predmet studije?