In principle, and in the long term but applies according Piketty the inequality trend, due to the following two economic relationships:
1. r> g (return on capital> Economic Groth rate)
2. ß = Capital / Income (assets / income)
The first connection means that the return on capital (through interest, exchange gains, property value gains, etc.) is almost always greater than the economic growth rate, behind which the average income growth are hidden in a society (through labor) per person. In other words, return on capital brings in terms of wealth creation more than to go to work. Piketty establishes the relation in great detail in his book. Worse, who has a great deal of capital (assets), can achieve generally higher returns on capital. This justifies Piketty also very closely, but I think that this also opens up so.
The SS value from the second connection in most industrialized countries 5-6, from 7 it is critical according to Piketty. Due to the first relationship (r> g), there is almost inevitably lead to a creeping increase in the ß-value can be achieved until sometime critical values. What then happens (wars, revolutions, protectionism, a return to a 'Patrimonial Capitalismn', which is dominated by family dynasties, ...), is basically unverhersehbar. Piketty warns of some possible future developments.
Its main proposal to avert / reversal development is redistribution (of wealthy towards incapable), through increased taxation of large fortunes. For this he mentions some specific figures.
In this direction has often been thought, even if it not perhaps might make sense, the maximum capacity (and possibly also the annual income) of an individual upwards to limit (see for example. The common welfare economy for a random example). Like it has already given in the history of mankind in other contexts. For example, had earlier rulers often not only unimaginable wealth, but also harems with thousands of women (another form of property). It was above all Christianity, which put a stop vorschob (a man can marry at a time only one woman). Here, too, it is primarily a measure to avoid excessive inequalities and ensure more fairness and equal opportunities.
Perhaps something similar is also required for capital assets. Because of the general inequality trend was worked out by others, eg. As by means of a simulated "world sugar" as. In Eric D. leg stool The Origin of Wealth As the economy evolution is shown drives. Although the world sugar is extremely easy, you do not know the many intricacies of the modern economy, including r> g in it and the actors involved really are all just simple robots, each time the following development (legged stool, p 110) showed:
"At the beginning of the simulation world sugar a fairly egalitarian society; the wealth distribution describes a soft Glockenkure a wide midfielder and a few very rich or very poor actors In addition, the distance between the richest and poorest actor is still relatively small changes over time.. . the curve However, while the average wealth in the course of the concentration of actors increases dramatically to the two sugar mountains, the curve loses its symmetrical appearance: Well there are a few super-rich players, followed by a long tail of upper class yuppies, a shrinking middle class and a large, growing underclass of poor actors (Note the displacement of the axis proportions: During the beginning of the highest account balance is only 30 affluent units, has the richest player in the last snapshot of over 270 units). ".
It seems to me therefore to speak some indications that behind the general trend towards increasingly unequal wealth distribution much more fundamental mechanisms hide when she wants to have identified Piketty.
Nor can the same development in many other processes observed where it comes to the allocation of scarce resources, such. As in the distribution of the resource "public awareness". Media invite you celebrities (or report them), because they can benefit themselves. Ultimately, this leads to an ever greater concentration on few people, just as it is when the assets. All other may then be restricted to a self-representation in forums or social media or hope once American Idol or other gladiatorial games to get into the limelight.
Popularly the principle is known: "The devil always sch..ßt the biggest pile."
When reading Pikettys book I asked myself constantly whether the book only of academic interest, or whether in fact there is an interest to less inequality and who could have such an interest. Me no one is sunken.
Because interestingly called Piketty some other mechanisms (besides war, disasters, etc.) that could counteract inequality increase. They come primarily from the field of demography. So it says on page 83:
"To take on extreme Example, in a world in Which each couple has ten children, it is better as a general rule CLEARLY not to count too much on inherited wealth, Because The family wealth will be divided by ten with each new generation. In Such a society, the overall influence of inherited wealth would be strongly dimished, and most people would be more realistic to rely on Their Own laboratory and savings. "
More generally, a positive correlation between wealth and income and number of offspring can counteract the increasing inequality distribution. Incidentally, as the nature solves the problem. This is called the principle, who would have thought that natural selection according to Darwin.
But there is anyone who is interested in such a positive correlation? The wealthy definitely not, and the left not. For them, that would be worse social Darwinism. See public dance that you have made to appropriate reminders Thilo Sarrazin. In fact, you live quite well by the inequality: the more inequality there is and the more children are born in poverty, the more votes can be gained and the better for the own wallet.
The religions? Nil for the same reasons. Why is contraception for Catholics themselves still not allowed in extreme poverty? Because without contraception more desperate believers are born, their only hope is their faith. The side effect of such a strategy is an increase in economic inequality.
Feminism? Alice Schwarzer designated in the response (45) the bearing and rearing of children by women as "fallow deployable forces". So here too we represent primarily the following strategy: Who can something (and thus is able to generate an income), to go to work primarily. The youth program is downstream contrast. Regrettably, leads exactly to increasing inequality, as Piketty justified.
Piketty called yet another demographic mechanism, namely the Immigration (S. 83f.):
"The same would be true in a society where the population is Constantly replenished by immigration from other countries, as what the case in America. Assuming did most immigrants arrive without much wealth, the amount of wealth passed down from previous generations is inherently fairly limited in comparison with new wealth accumulated through savings. Demographic growth via immigration has other Consequences, HOWEVER, Especially in regard to inequality between immigrants and native as well as within each group. "
In other words: The replacement of their own offspring by immigrants resulting in greater economic inequality.
But what happens when immigrants and their own offspring together the previous generation can not replace and there is a stagnation or even shrinkage of the population size. Even then white Piketty an answer (84):
"Conversely, a stagnant or, worse, decreasing population Increases the influence of capital accumulated in previous generations. The same is true of economic stagnation."
In short: All the (shrinking population numbers, economic stagnation) increases economic inequality.
Finally, a note concerning Pikettys redistribution proposal. Regardless of whether it is sensible and feasible (Piketty itself points out that it might be difficult to enforce a global world), it is not applicable to all. Not all inequalities relate to money. For example, many people lack adequate access already to clean drinking water. With the redistribution or forwarding of the Amazon or the Rhine water, the problem not solved with contraception but partly already. Note in this context: Even the economic boom in China is mainly due to the local one-child policy. Wikipedia notes to:.. "Famines, natural disasters and wars kept for centuries the increase of China's population in check until after 1949 began an explosive population growth To counter this, was 1979/1980 the one-child policy introduced in order to prevent famine and to enable economic progress, after it had been tried previously to limit the number of births to two per family. "
