English language
Published Dec. 14, 2014 by Belknap Press.
What are the grand dynamics that drive the accumulation and distribution of capital? Questions about the long-term evolution of inequality, the concentration of wealth, and the prospects for economic growth lie at the heart of political economy. But satisfactory answers have been hard to find for lack of adequate data and clear guiding theories. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty analyzes a unique collection of data from twenty countries, ranging as far back as the eighteenth century, to uncover key economic and social patterns. His findings will transform debate and set the agenda for the next generation of thought about wealth and inequality.
Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx. But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic …
What are the grand dynamics that drive the accumulation and distribution of capital? Questions about the long-term evolution of inequality, the concentration of wealth, and the prospects for economic growth lie at the heart of political economy. But satisfactory answers have been hard to find for lack of adequate data and clear guiding theories. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty analyzes a unique collection of data from twenty countries, ranging as far back as the eighteenth century, to uncover key economic and social patterns. His findings will transform debate and set the agenda for the next generation of thought about wealth and inequality.
Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx. But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II. The main driver of inequality--the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth--today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values. But economic trends are not acts of God. Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again.
A work of extraordinary ambition, originality, and rigor, Capital in the Twenty-First Century reorients our understanding of economic history and confronts us with sobering lessons for today.
(Original text from the spine of the book)
The thing is that I'm a complete beginner in this subject, but I found the book very interesting and novel. Definitely a lot of food for thought. And global economics are not so simple as I thought.
I originally read this when it was new, but decided to reread in advance of reading some of Piketty's other books, as I remembered very little of it beyond r>g. It's a slow read, thanks to the mountain of data presented in it, but well worth the time to read. Easily one of the most important books of the last decade.
This was great, but for me, an extremely difficult book to get through. I think i might have found it easier if the beginning started with the recommendations, with the basis being the follow up.
Holy crap I finished it. Do I win a prize?
Piketty outlines the case for the inequality r>g (rate of return on capital > growth of overall economy) with extensive documentation. From this simple rule he describes the forces which lead to the rise of a rentier class that can live very well off inherited wealth which isn't necessarily socially useful. Ultimately I disagree with his solutions to this problem but it seems fairly hard to challenge the idea that wealth above a certain level tends to reproduce itself. Reinvestment of a portion of the returns on capital leads to a natural process of accumulation which Piketty argues will lead to a dangerous level of wealth concentration in the hands of a very few. Throughout the book he's very open about the strengths and weaknesses of his sources and openly declares his personal opinion about wealth accumulation. He did a tremendous amount of research and analysis and that's the main …
Piketty outlines the case for the inequality r>g (rate of return on capital > growth of overall economy) with extensive documentation. From this simple rule he describes the forces which lead to the rise of a rentier class that can live very well off inherited wealth which isn't necessarily socially useful. Ultimately I disagree with his solutions to this problem but it seems fairly hard to challenge the idea that wealth above a certain level tends to reproduce itself. Reinvestment of a portion of the returns on capital leads to a natural process of accumulation which Piketty argues will lead to a dangerous level of wealth concentration in the hands of a very few. Throughout the book he's very open about the strengths and weaknesses of his sources and openly declares his personal opinion about wealth accumulation. He did a tremendous amount of research and analysis and that's the main reason for my high rating: he backed up his opinions with historical and modern data. The policies he proposes are debateable but he establishes the premise (r>g) in extensive detail and across a broad range of countries and time periods. Few would accuse him of using too little data and historical sources.
This was without a doubt the most important book I've read for a long time now. Its main theme is measuring inequality of wealth and income in as broad a scale as possible (given available data) for the past two centuries, and making observations about it.
As the author himself points out, a lot of economic theory has been based on speculation and poor data, and it is necessary for economists to start looking at the closest we have to the facts, i.e. data of this scale and sort. Piketty describes a few cases where economists' theories were based on very narrow data that was very biased and are immediately proven unsound once one takes a look at the data at a broader level.
The data presented by Piketty is astounding, both in volume and in content. From it arise surprising tidbits, like for example that the percentage of people …
This was without a doubt the most important book I've read for a long time now. Its main theme is measuring inequality of wealth and income in as broad a scale as possible (given available data) for the past two centuries, and making observations about it.
As the author himself points out, a lot of economic theory has been based on speculation and poor data, and it is necessary for economists to start looking at the closest we have to the facts, i.e. data of this scale and sort. Piketty describes a few cases where economists' theories were based on very narrow data that was very biased and are immediately proven unsound once one takes a look at the data at a broader level.
The data presented by Piketty is astounding, both in volume and in content. From it arise surprising tidbits, like for example that the percentage of people who inherit more than everyone in the bottom 50% of the income scale will make in their entire lives, is around 15% in France today. Or that the French Revolution didn't impact wealth and income distribution at any significant rate. Or that the income and wealth distribution of today, in some respects is not unlike the one at the beginning of the 20th century (the main difference is the formation of a somewhat more affluent middle class).
Besides presenting the data, Piketty of course presents his conclusions, and then also embarks on a proposal to counteract the "forces of divergence", as he puts it.
His most important conclusion (among many), I think, are that two basic tenets of free market capitalism demonstrably do not correspond to the reality of today and of recent decades. These are that a) the free market organically leads to less and less inequality and b) that capitalism is meritocratic and that everyone has the same resources to succeed.
Finally, Piketty presents his proposal to reduce inequality, and that is to impose a progressive tax on capital, reaching much higher levels than any has reached previously.
One notable feature of this book is that the author seems to assume that equality is something everyone agrees is desirable, or at least that the current inequality is undesirable. I wholeheartedly agree with most of the book's values, this one included, but I also believe that a reason inequality is what it is now, is that a lot of the people involved, do not agree. The book does indeed present its data as impartially as possible, but the commentary and the choice of data itself, is of course replete with the author's ideology of support for equality, and thus I feel that it will fail to convince many free market people who in reality don't have the same values. For the rest of us, I think it is eye opening, thought provoking, and it gives us the ideological fuel to answer free market defenders who try to convince the world that they believe in freedom and justice and so on.
Wow, this is an extraordinary piece of work. Quite dense and long and lots of graphs but truly a groundbreaking bit of scholarship and well worth the effort. Painstakingly reviewing hundreds of years of various financial records, he destroys the cheerful Kuznets Curve, which underlies much of neoliberialism/globalization. Don't worry about inequalities (i.e. the rich get richer while the poor get poorer), they will diverge for a while then after a sufficient period of development they will converge again.
Piketty shows that this isn't the case and that even Kuznets didn't quite get why he thought his theory worked. The trends this was based on didn't account for the distortions of two world wars. Piketty then goes on to show that capitalism has no mechanism to encourage the convergences of inequalities and looking at current trends, the divergences will continue into the future at a ever increasing pace much to …
Wow, this is an extraordinary piece of work. Quite dense and long and lots of graphs but truly a groundbreaking bit of scholarship and well worth the effort. Painstakingly reviewing hundreds of years of various financial records, he destroys the cheerful Kuznets Curve, which underlies much of neoliberialism/globalization. Don't worry about inequalities (i.e. the rich get richer while the poor get poorer), they will diverge for a while then after a sufficient period of development they will converge again.
Piketty shows that this isn't the case and that even Kuznets didn't quite get why he thought his theory worked. The trends this was based on didn't account for the distortions of two world wars. Piketty then goes on to show that capitalism has no mechanism to encourage the convergences of inequalities and looking at current trends, the divergences will continue into the future at a ever increasing pace much to the determent of society.
I see why such places as the Wall Street Journal are reacting so shrilly to this work since the magical hand of the market, which has failed the world so miserably in the GFC and the market failure of climate change, will also fail in preventing growing inequalities. Policy interventions will be the only way to reign in these growing problems. Piketty has done a great thing in putting inequalities on the agenda in economics.
I'm no economist, but to my ears Piketty makes a reasonable, readable, and engaging case for a new sort of tax to help close the growing disparity between the world's richest and poorest peoples.
Piketty recognizes that this sort of global tax is a utopia, but fails to acknowledge the sad truth that as long as the richest have a disproportionately loud voice in political decisions, nothing will ever change.
