The road from serfdom

The most subversive writings circulate market hall: i borrowed this book on the desk of a trader. I thought it would be a very technical and statistical study but in fact this is an economic history of inequalities since 1700 in Europe and the US, narrative, filled with humor and not without literary interest despite the complexity of the subject. The introduction, in particular, clearly poses problems and deserve BE printed separately in his time as the Discourse on Method. Social criticism is particularly well regarded, especially through literary references to Balzac, Jane Austen and even Aristocats. The author touches a little bit of everything, opens many subjects, the divergence between consumption and production in China, the bankruptcy of two thirds, and the fact that the rich consider themselves morally superior to the poor (entitlement effect).

The view is rather left but do not throw market economy with the bath water. However, I find it amazing that the author does not arise at any point of consumption linégalité question that he nétudie linégalité income or principal amounts. Yet the same income inequality quau nineteenth century (the period when the shortage of many goods can transform any additional income into useful consumption) is not in my opinion today to the same consumption inequality, all the more that the citizens of the twenty-first century have many free services that are not included in income (health and education in particular). Several studies on happiness show dailleurs quau twenty-first century, an income higher than three or four times the average income continues to provide a significant additional welfare, as well as Balzac had to twenty times the average income for a decent living in 1820. And the main thing if the rich spend their income in smart phones luxury thousand euros while the poor have phones to twenty euros maybe it is not so dramatic in terms of equality, even if the difference amount is huge.

I also find that the author deviates too quickly the hypothesis that wage differentials today are due to productivity differentials (he mainly attributed to the excessive bargaining power of "super-frames"). In reality we see that small structures of a few people (hedge funds, private equity firms, start-ups) really have huge productivity, and many big company executives could probably maintain their pay by working independently. That does not make it less dailleurs worrying phenomenon because it seems to lead to a situation where a small number of "super-producers" would walk by one-hand economy while the rest of the population would be at home in a tracksuit, being playing playstation.

The main lesson of this study remains that the twentieth century was an exceptional period in the history economic and world wars that only helped temporarily moderate the inequalities. The market (and not market inefficiencies) naturally tends to the concentration of increasingly strong heritages. Economic Léquilibre of our societies is fragile and highly dependent on the political context. Finally in this table quite disturbing, an economic crisis or war seems much less to fear quune desclavage generalized situation and total social dimmobilisme - as in the late Roman Empire.