Thomas-PikettyBy Peter Galuszka

Call it “The Anti-Baconomics.”

Thomas Piketty, a French economist, is turning conventional, conservative economic thinking on its head. Goodbye to the idea that all boats rise in capitalism. What we are seeing instead is a dangerous concentration of  21st century wealth in the hands of an ever-smaller elite.

This is Piketty’s message in his book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” (a 700-pager on my reading list) that caught Europe by storm last year and is now a best-seller in this country.

Unlike convention wisdom, the thesis from this thinker from the Paris School of Economics is that Marx was wrong about capitalism self-destructing but so is Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets who posited a few decades ago that the inequality gap inevitably grows smaller with economic growth. Just the opposite, it turns out.

“One of the great divisive forces at work today,” Pinketty has said, “is what I call meritocratic extremism. This is the conflict between billionaires, whose income comes from property and assets, such as a Saudi prince, and super-managers. Neither of these categories makes or produces anything but their wealth, which is really a super-wealth that has broken away from the everyday reality of the market, which determines how most ordinary people live.”

This is why, perhaps, middle class families struggle to see declining disposable income while others who do not produce wealth but slice it and dice, like hedge fund managers or managers of huge corporations, are safe with their unsinkable portfolios. It is the same in just about any country, capitalist or no, from the U.S., to Spain, to China, to India to Russia.

If this continue continues unabated, as it probably will, you will see increasing social unrest as the 21st century wears on.

It seems interesting that Piketty who is in this 40s, came up of this relatively free from the residual Marxist thinking, or Keynesian for that matter, that did lurk in the background of many college economics intro courses. The Frenchman seems to be viewing things through a new prism of what has actually been happening over the past five decades when the middle class dream started evaporating and hard work, sacrifice and productivity simply no longer mattered.

If you read one of the books published a few years back by a prominent blogger here, you get the same-old Reaganomics of trickle down topped with a sauce of the Protestant worth ethic masquerading as agnosticism.

What’s the upshot of Piketty? It seems to be taxes, taxes and more taxes. In other words, it is time to start considering redistributing wealth from the elite back to their societies. The question seems to be “Why not? The elite didn’t really earn it anyway.”

Read meat for conservatives. The right-wing media has launched an anti-Piketty counterattack which is healthy and predictable. But he has a few things going for him. Given his youth, he represents the fresh views of up-and-coming thought leaders. And their thoughts are hardly the conventional all-boats-rise sophistry. Watch as the debate becomes stronger.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

14 responses to “A Frenchman Turns Economics Upside Down”

  1. I’ve read a couple of reviews of Piketty’s book (admiring in some ways, hostile in others) but have not read the book itself so I will refrain from comment. I hope to find the time to read it, although I’m not sure I will.

    I would say this, though, based on Peter’s description. It sounds like there are two books here: One addresses an empirical question of whether the inequality of wealth has increased over the past couple of centuries, and one addresses a philosophical question of what should we do about it.

    The answer to the first question is almost irrelevant. To the Left, it doesn’t matter if wealth inequality waxes or wanes, as long as there is *any* significant inequality, they want to do something about it. Therefore, the remedies — tax, tax and tax some more — will prove attractive to the Left (and unattractive to the Right) regardless.

  2. What fries me the most is that the left will protect those at the very top while increasing taxes on the successful. And then there are those at the top who call for more taxes, but use tax dodges – with the Grand Hypocrite Warren Buffett at the van.
    http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/09/buffett-berkshire-graham/
    http://nypost.com/2013/03/31/tax-lover-buffett-dodges-taxes-in-goldman-deal/

    Warren Buffett and his ilk deserve to burn in hell for their hypocrisy. Walk your talk or keep your mouth shut.

  3. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    The review I read was not coy — it’s just re-warmed Marxism. His prescription is taxes to redistributed wealth, whereas Marx wanted to centralize capital itself in the hands of the government. We all saw how that worked out. We’ve also seen eras even in this country when marginal tax rates were far higher on the successful and on inherited wealth, and there you can see some evidence that approach produced benefits. Even today plenty of re-distribution is still going on.

    Yet the middle class still struggles. I really do believe that to a large extent the middle class is being crushed by taxes. The focus is on income taxes but that is the tip of the iceberg. Sales taxes, excise taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes, taxes on a small business — none of those are progressive. Nor necessarily should they be. I don’t think anybody really knows how much we pay in taxes because they are so embedded in every transaction but I’m willing to bet that the impact of these non-income-based taxes on the working poor and lower middle class far exceeds what it was under FDR, and is a major contributor to the inability of so many families to assemble the capital to build a business, buy a house or pay for their kid’s education.

    Oh, yeah, and with education the obvious gateway out of poverty, tell me again why we charge so much for that? I will fight you tooth and nail on redistribution but I will be the first to say that UVA should be FREE to far more families than qualify for aid now. THAT I will pay taxes for.

    They recently celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the voting rights act, something my Republican progenitors applauded (GAR GOP I call it.) But I think a real critique on the other part of LBJ’s legacy, the War on Poverty, will produce far less applause.

  4. Les Schreiber Avatar
    Les Schreiber

    Its interesting to read the reviews of this work. The WSJ has a piece which is totally negative while other have been much more complimentary some even raising the book in importance to John Keynes work in the midst of the Great Depression in 1933. I have not read it yet. Its on only 700 page economics text I’ve ever seen backordered on Amazon.It does seem to be gaining a lot of comments and after I actually read it we’ll have a few comments.

  5. Ghost of Ted Dalton Avatar
    Ghost of Ted Dalton

    I have not read the book, but I plan to read it this summer.

    I do agree with Peter’s summary: The super wealthy and super managers really are detached from the everyday realities of the 98 or 99%.

    The super wealthy have now had GENERATIONS of wealth transfer. Big shock….they’ve made an absolute killing off of decades of rising equity markets around the globe. The super managers are ensconced in “heads I win, tails I win” positions. Even if they do a poor job, the salaries already reaped as well as the “severance packages” that are received are enormous.

    That’s the one thing that I think today’s GOP is making an enormous mistake about…Just b/c someone doesn’t like to see this top 1 or 2 percent take increasing amounts of nat’l and int’l wealth does NOT make them a socialist. Advocating for a higher tax rate for the tippy top is not “Marxism.”

    I’ve been part of successful and unsuccessful business ventures. You’d probably call me a “capitalist.” But I definitely support a rethinking of our current economic system that sees a top 1 or 2 percent all but detached from the rest of society. There are plenty of “businessmen” such as myself that also have a real uneasiness with where we see things going with the top 1 or 2 percent and the rise of automation (which will lead to the further decline of “middle class” jobs).

    At the very basic level, “capitalism” is the ability to take one’s capital or labor and invest it in an enterprise in the hopes of reaping a greater return on the initial investment.
    “Socialism” is public ownership of the means of production.

    How any debate in America over inequality or taxation turns to “Marxism” v. “Capitalism” is amazing.

    Questioning the extreme global wealth inequality in 2014 is not the same as Workers of the World Unite and take ownership of the means of production in the 1840s.

  6. Les Schreiber Avatar
    Les Schreiber

    Several things to remember when speaking about the book. First the fundamental foundation of capitalism was broken in the solution to the crisis in 2008/2009. Failure ,not hard work and innovation,was rewarded as Goldman and others were paid 100 cents on the dollar on the credit default swaps issued by AIG Which was bailed out to the tune of 180 billion and the head of AIGFP was paid his bonus of over $200 million.
    Secondly it is not unimportant and Mr Piketty is European. As the leader of Germany stated about a year ago that Anglo/Saxons placed too much emphasis on financial engineering. She echos Paul Krugman,the bete noir of the Right.as he said for many years that finance was too big a slice of American GDP.
    For those with great math skills and tons of time the stats behind the work are available at http://Piketty.pse.ens.fr/capital21c

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Les,
    Absolutely right. Right, too, about Europeans. Some of us on this blog have referred to them as “Euroweenies” (I mention no names!) but I think it is important to realize that the thinking goes far beyonds the U.S., Virginia, Richmond, and a certain West End neighborhood.

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    People who run hedge funds don’t create wealth? I give up, why not? Does anybody who invests in anything create wealth? Back in the 1950s did stockbrokers create wealth? What about local bankers? Isn’t a decision to make a loan (or not) essentially a capital allocation decision? In other words, an investment?

    What an absurd thought. Of course investors and those who manage invested capital create wealth. They use their education, experience and talent to make capital allocation decision. This, in turn, creates a more efficient market which creates wealth for virtually everybody.

    Corporate CEOs don’t create wealth? That’s perhaps the only statement more absurd than the statement that hedge fund managers don’t create wealth. Does a football coach create wealth? How about a movie director? A movie producer? A community organizer? The football coach never takes the field, the producer and director never make the cut and the community organizer organizes others. How about newspaper editors?

    As for Mr. Dalton’s Ghost – you really need to understand the data better. “The super wealthy and super managers really are detached from the everyday realities of the 98 or 99%.”.

    Top 1% = $368,238 (20.9% of income)
    Top 0.5% = $558,726 (16.8% of income)
    Top 0.1% = $1,695,136 (10.3% of income)
    Top 0.01% = $9,141,190 (5% of income)

    I believe that’s 2010 data. The numbers move a lot based on the stock market. So, Obama’s continued artificial lowering of interest rates via the Fed levitates the stock market and makes the Top 1%, 0.5%, 0.1% all the richer.

    Where does the top 2% start? I’d guess about $250,000 in 2010. And that’s household income. So two people each making $125,000 per year are among your “super wealthy” who are detached from everyday reality.

    If I included pension benefits and annualized their salaries then two experienced Fairfax County public school teachers married to each other would easily make your hurdle of “super wealthy”.

    Somebody ought to punch ole Frenchy Fuqua in the arm and show him this graph:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png

    What happened in the early 1970s to decouple productivity growth from growth in real median wages?

    Write a book about that and I’ll be the first to buy it.

    1. virginiagal2 Avatar
      virginiagal2

      Investing on its own does not create real wealth. It can – and does – create paper wealth.

      Real wealth is created by the individuals and businesses. Not by the investors. The process of actually building something – creating actual value – is getting subordinated to the game of creating paper value.

      Thus you get multi-billion dollar startups that are not profitable, have no plausible way to become profitable, but can be sold profitably. We have had a cycle of them. Look up actual profits. As of last year, Amazon still wasn’t making a profit. Last time I checked, Twitter still wasn’t making a profit. At least those two have reasonable business plans, which is not the case with many. Zynga is losing money and users. King (Candy Crush) is trying to sell itself as a public company based on one game, and game fads change faster than women’s shoe fads.

      Lot of money is being made, most of it by the investors and founders with equity. The money is not, for many of these companies, in actual profits.

      The idea of creating value is getting decoupled from who makes money. That is not good for society.

      I’m old and stodgy and believe stock value should reflect actual value of potential earnings, not “can I sell this shiny object before someone comes to their senses.”

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    DJR
    This is my admittedly simplistic explanation. Farmers who grow crops create wealth. So too, do factory workers, miners, oil drillers, software writers, etc. Service workers like hairdressers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, etc. do, too.

    Investments bankers and hedge fund operators, not really.

    Another example. Back in the 1990s when I was a correspondent in Moscow working for a business magazine, I was doing a cover story profiling the rise of the oligarchs. They bought up shares in state-owned firms after the Russians went through their crazy privatization scheme thought up by the likes of Jeffrey Sachs, Harvard profs and the IMF. I had a moment of clarity. These guys were basically buying shares from clueless babushki and snapping up oil, gas, precious and industrial metals and materials, etc. and exporting them at huge margins. Only one guy I spoke with, name Panikin, was actually using his shares to make something. He started textile firms to employ real Russians, pay them a decent wage, and make clothes people actually wanted to wear instead of cheap Chinese knockoffs. Other firms featured Russian software writers who are quite brilliant.

    But the biggest wealth came from stripping and exporting assets that had been created by others. Cashing out the sweat of others, in other words.

    That, at least, was my lesson.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      You are arguing against yourself. The Russian privatization you reference is an example of a broken capital allocation process. Since there was no effective market for the babushki shares they had no way of knowing the fair price for those shares. Therefore, they sold too cheap and the oligarchs made a killing.

      Had Russia established a transparent market for the buying and selling of shares, that would have been a start. Then, had the Russians invited the very American hedge fund managers and private equity traders you dislike to buy shares the oligarchs would have had competition. This competition for the shares would have forced the prices up and the babushki would have gotten a lot more money.

      Confidence in a transparent stock exchange with a sufficient number of well financed, non colluding buyers and sellers would have provided the basis for people like Panikin to raise capital at fair valuations for enterprises such as the clothing factory you describe.

      The effort and knowledge required by individuals to make informed investment decisions in a competitive and open market is considerable. The result of such markets is fair pricing of shares and liquidity. Both of these attributes improve the rational allocation of capital within a country and make everybody in the country wealthier – whether they know it or not.

      In the end, it was Russia’s lack of an adequate supply of the very people you discredit along with what sounds like very poor government oversight to guarantee transparency that robbed your babushki friends.

      1. virginiagal2 Avatar
        virginiagal2

        I think a lot of the concern about financialization of the country is that so much of this is wandering away from what finance was traditionally thought to be for.

        Used properly, finance is vitally important to a country, providing businesses and individuals with a tool they can use to produce value.

        Gaming the markets with high speed trading, to buy up shares before purchasers can, then resell them at a higher price, is not producing value.

        Moving commodities from one warehouse to another, to game the warehousing rules, does not produce value.

        Bypassing the proper rules of mortgage titles to create complex bundles of mortgage derivatives has created a situation where the actual ownership of millions of mortgages are no longer compliant with documentation laws – does not produce value.

        Finance is a tool. On its own, it creates nothing. Used properly, it can help create value.

        But finance should be the cart, not the horse.

  10. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    ALso am ready ing Doris K. Goodwin’s book about Roosevelt and Taft and the muckrakers. Things have not changed at all, have they?

  11. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    DJR,
    Apologies but things happened too fast in Russia for a “transparent” system to take hold. In some ways, both my example and your response are of base.

Leave a Reply