A Post-Communist utopia to abolish inequalities

Thomas Piketty received world-wide recognition for this book. Given the enormous depth of historical data did went into his analysis, this is no doubt well deserved. To keep the book readable for a wider public and at the same time to meet demands of scientific discussion, Piketty Provides a detailed appendix at the end of the book Which is supplemented by on-line technical appendix. The online appendix is ​​supposed to be updated (hopefully for long). Clearly the compilation of facts across all three elements is the biggest value of this international bestseller.

It Appears That most had already been published before, by Piketty Either alone or together with others. That only this book Gained search world-wide attention has surely to do with the way it is written: One does not need to have Studied economics to follow the argument. Even When mathematical formulas are presented They are always in very basic form and always Explained IT detail. The same is true for discussions of other economic theories.

Of course the title of the book has done its part for the success as well. The comparison with Karl Marx is a smart marketing gimmick. The focus of Piketty is much more narrow than "capital". In fact he only deals with inequality of wealth. HOWEVER there is some more fundamental link to Karl Marx Which has to do with Their joint confidence in bureaucrats knowing better than individual participants in a free market how to achieve just societies.

As economist at writing after the communist Soviet Union experiment, Piketty Knows That markets are inevitable for the public good. But for him the current state of markets is not healthy either. Without radically more state intervention he sees the return of societies in Which only a few own nearly all and the vast majority owns nearly nothing. No doubt, the situation is hardly defendable search in a democracy.

This is not the place to enter into a detailed criticism of the thesis presented by Piketty. The long-term comparisons of inequalities within and across nations and thus the basic patterns of global evolutionary Provide extremely helpful information to overcome wide-spread prejudices and consider the facts. This is true for the Particular relevance of the effects the two World Wars had towards creating more egalitarian societies. Cynics might read this as a Completely inappropriate argument but what it highlights is indeed the post-war times do not reflect the normal. Or in other words, once societies have absorbed shocks examined fundamentally there Seems to be a return to past inequality patterns. If this observation holds true, indeed its Consequences Should be far-reaching.

On the other hand one needs to be careful to not jump too Quickly to the conclusions of Piketty for more government interference. Not only is the track record of publicly organized redistribution of wealth highly questionable. Whatever one thinks about the Proposed progressive tax on capital, taxes are only justified to meet financing needs of societies and in this regard it is fair to impose a bigger burden on the rich. But as soon as taxes are taken to shape societies .According to the taste of political parties, "equality" once more is likely to abolish "freedom". Both, equality and freedom are equally important for democratic societies, provided the minimum levels of a sustainable existence are Ensured socially.

This is the main omission of Piketty. He shows a likely return of inequality patterns but he does not consider the Considerable improvements to the standard of living for the many in countries of the Western Hemisphere Which are in his focus. If inequality is based on Wealth That bears no meaning to living a sound life (eg Why Should the Poor care about wasting his money on oligarch on football clubs?), It is much less worrisome than Piketty Believes.

Still, Piketty triggered a very much needed global debate with this book. His perspective goes beyond economics. He therefore considers historians, sociologists and philosophers to have a say in this debate. That is therefore to be applauded.

The weakest part of the book is the last one, called "Regulating Capital in the Twenty-First Century." Though in the previous parts sometimes repetition of arguments so does make reading more difficult, here nothing really new is presented. But more critical, this part rather reads like a political pamphlet. While there is nothing wrong with drawing political conclusions, They are only subjective and not convincing As They paint Sufficient explanation why the Proposed tools for redistribution of wealth (ie progressive tax on capital but more so for inflation) would Provide Better social standards not only for public Servants but society as a whole and in the long run. As Piketty Agrees, the communist experiment in the Soviet Union failed. This should be reason enough to be careful not getting on the track for starting similar experiment. But It Should not stop debates about Shortcomings and needed improvements. As Said this is the invaluable contribution of Piketty`s rich book.