Thus Thomas Piketty, which has an undeniable talent educator, scientist treats of great intellectual rigor (as far as I can tell) a highly sensitive political issue: the distribution of wealth in rich (capitalists) from the end of 18th century to today. Furthermore, according to the laws of capitalism that we brilliantly exposes it deduces possible trends for the 21st century.
In very brief:
This study shows us that to labor income, inequality has generally varied little during the period (2 centuries) considered.
Regarding the Asset:
-For The poorest half of the population the situation was unchanged: in the early 21st century, as in the early 20th century, it has only about 5% of total assets.
-For The 10% richest of the population has shifted from 90% of total assets in 1910-50 to 70% in 2010.
'But for the future, the trend is the return of a very high concentration of capital in the hands of a small minority, because the return on capital is higher than the economic and population growth, this performance being even more important that capital is important.
Based on these observations, including the deepening of the domination of an oligarchy which undermines the foundations of democracy, the author formula in the last 200 pages, the proposal of a tax "global" soft capital, with precise figures: from 1 to 5% from 1 million euros.
Naturally the latter part of the book is different in nature from the first part (the included) and can be more easily discussed. As for me, I admire, without limitation, the study (up to chapter 12) because I think it puts the ideas in place, highlighting the role of the oligarchy (the holders of capital the most important), but I have less admiration for its proposals. Indeed proposing a tax "world" concerning the wealthiest amounts to nothing at all but suggest waiting for a miracle.
In fact, these proposals correspond to Thomas Piketty his sensitivity, he calls non-revolutionary in his introduction, and its commitment to the PS (as we learn from Wikipedia). So it is easy to notice that the PS in power takes the opposite path of his proposals. I also observed that the author seems to consider bringing to 70 the retirement age for the intellectual professions, that teachers will appreciate ...
But the negativity does not affect my positive assessment of his study, at least to chapter 12. In other words I attribute 5 stars being considered but not to the proposals.
-