Man just discovers Marx's discovers and writes a book on it.

[Comrade Jacob]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/thomas-piketty-amazon_n_5191566.html

*discoveries

[Thirsty Crow]

"The more egalitarian 20th century".

Wow oh my, I never knew that the entire 20th century begun with the Marshall Plan and that historical temporality is non-existent in the global South.

[motion denied]

Piketty says the world's biggest economies have to do something, like impose a global tax on capital, to stop it.

That's radical. Definitely bringing Kapital to the 21st century.

[Queen Mab]

I've read a lot of articles about Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century in the last few days.

The fact that the bourgeois media is promoting this guy is a massive deal when you think about it. A mainstream neoclassical economist bowlderising bits from Marx and getting to the top of the bestsellers list. 20 years ago it would never have happened. You get the feeling that the bourgeoisie knows capitalism is in a long-term crisis but can't see a way out. Certainly a return to social democracy is absolutely laughable.

I brought up this book with a liberal friend, telling him that "even bourgeois economists are starting to turn on capitalism".

[BIXX]

I've read a lot of articles about Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century in the last few days.

The fact that the bourgeois media is promoting this guy is a massive deal when you think about it... You get the feeling that the bourgeoisie knows capitalism is in a long-term crisis but can't see a way out.

They may know there's no way out but they'd never support someone who advocates the end of capitalism- the support he has is likely due to the feeling that he isn't a threat. He is more or less a sideshow, who will probably be forgotten in just a few days, maybe weeks.

I highly doubt this guy is anything to be terribly excited about.

[Queen Mab]

They may know there's no way out but they'd never support someone who advocates the end of capitalism- the support he has is likely due to the feeling that he isn't a threat. He is more or less a sideshow, who will probably be forgotten in just a few days, maybe weeks.

I highly doubt this guy is anything to be terribly excited about.

Of course. I just think the book is symptomatic of a turn in discourse, which in turn is symptomatic of a material crisis of capitalism.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I died laughing at this comment


I want to see labor invest capital in a start up company, I want to see labor worry about paying the bills. I want to see labor working endless hours without wanting over time. I want to see labor borrow money and risk their own money, maybe through a second mortgage, family loans, cashing in a retirement plan. I want to see labor focusing on making a company work and putting themselves last in line.

And if the company fails, I want to see labor pitch in to help the company liquidate or close in a manner that will not hurt the founders even more.

Of course....you won't see that......

You will see labor want to share in the benefits but to blame management on the failures.


:laugh:

[The Jay]

The book may be shit but at least more people are questioning the status quo even if their solutions are just another form of it. Could be worse.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The truth is that most bourgeoisie economists, even if they're pained to admit it, have known about and acknowledged many of Marx's primary points, including his law of The Declining Rate of Profit, for many years now. They may not agree with his solutions, or even his conclusions, but even they can't deny that his observations are still as true now as they were in his lifetime.

Marx, of course, will ultimately have the last laugh.

[Loony Le Fist]

I died laughing at this comment
:laugh:

What an idiot. If labor owns the company, then labor is the managers. So they are going to attempt to skirt the blame for failure by blaming themselves? :laugh:

Are these people even for real?

[Redistribute the Rep]

My favorite is the part where he says he wants to see labor work endless hours :laugh: does he even know what the word labor means?!

[Sea]

Plot twist: His name is Karl Marx IV.

[Red Economist]

Here's a rough sketch of what is going through my head.


"Welcome to huff post live. I'm Ryan Grim. A new book is out and it argues that under capitalism the rich get richer. This, quite naturally, has rocked the economics profession to it's core.

I'm joined here today by the author of that book, Capital in the twenty-first century, Thomas Picketty. And to help me digest this, we joined also be Alexis Goldstein of the other 98%, herself a former wall street banker.

thank you for joining us.

so, let me try, err, real quickly to lay out a top line here. you tell me if I'm botching it, you tell me what I'm leaving out. But essentially, what you've done here as nobody else has done in the past, is combine more than two hundred years of empirical data on inequality and deduced a few patterns that are evident in capitalism. And the main one that you find, is that returns on capital outstrip returns on growth of the regular economy and what that means is that the rich keep getting richer, everybody else stays below the rich, capital keeps accumulating to the top. I think you say at one point that the past devours the future because people inherit more money and the grow more and more power, the more power they have, the more they tilt the rules in their favor. err. did I get anything wrong here. what did you find?"

This gets you to 1:24 in the interview.

The ignorance. The incomprehension. The incredulity. The hypocrisy. I don't know whether to laugh, cry or smash my laptop in a fit of rage. it's so frustrating.

The economics profession says "the market is always right", enforces it as a scientific dogma in neoclassical economics, pushes aside problems of evidence with mathematical formulas and dismisses it's opponents as unrealistic proponents of economic inefficiency and enemies of individual liberty and freedom of consumer choice. This guy is just saying "the market is always right.....but...." and they think he's a visionary, sitting there, lapping it up as if it's an original point of view.

He's only arguing for a Tobin tax and a registry of Tax havens for F**K sake!


42:18
"You've written one of the seminal texts of political economy. What do you do next?"
"so, your going to spend your life writing volumes two and three. like the last guy who wrote one?"

please. stop. just stop. you're letting down your entire social class and making a mockery of the historical and intellectual achievements of classical economics. you're an insult to your predecessors who had the integrity to admit Marx's ghost is shouting, screaming and banging on the glass in the studio behind you. He wrote Capital whilst he was impoverished and you bastards just sit their in you're suits congratulating your selves at being paid for this sh*t. Could you just role a spliff with a hundred dollar bill and light up on camera to complete the picture of intellectual decadence and self-congratulation?

[takes deep breath] Ok, rant over. :glare:

[slum]

tragedy, farce etc

[bropasaran]

The truth is that most bourgeoisie economists, even if they're pained to admit it, have known about and acknowledged many of Marx's primary points, including his law of The Declining Rate of Profit, for many years now. They may not agree with his solutions, or even his conclusions, but even they can't deny that his observations are still as true now as they were in his lifetime.

Marx, of course, will ultimately have the last laugh.
That wasn't his point, all classical ecnomists (Smith, Ricardo, etc) function with the assumption that falling rate of profit is a fact, and then give different theories as to why that's the case. That means that some economist are reconsidering ideas of classical (as opposed to today's neoclassical) economy, not Marxian ideas. Which I don't see as a bad thing, Marxian theory is pretty awful, concerning criticism of practical side of (historically) existing capitalist economies, other theories such as different forms of Keynesianism are much better, and concerning criticism of fundaments of capitalism the way to look is towards Thomas Hodgskin, Anton Menger and Proudhon.

[Tim Cornelis]

This thread is teeming with ignorance really. None of you have read the book but many are ridiculing it. It's bias all around. This thread is in theory. So an interesting discussion on whether the conclusions of this book can be married with Marxist analysis, does it invalidate Marxism, etc., would be expected here.

Which discovery of Marx has he done? That growing wealth disparity is a tendency in capitalism? I'm not entirely sure if that was Marx' key points. In any case, the popularity of this book does not come from some conspiracy of the bourgeoisie in promoting it, but from its validation through empirical data. Marx' Capital relies on reasoning (which has proven to be a great attraction to readers), but not directly on empirical data. In fact, the law of vale has never been proven as it is very difficult to test. As such, it remains a hypothesis. Pikkety's thesis is sustained by empirical data that has so far been tried to be refuted, but failed, which is the source of Pikkety's rising popularity.


"The more egalitarian 20th century".

Wow oh my, I never knew that the entire 20th century begun with the Marshall Plan and that historical temporality is non-existent in the global South.

Here is a picture of the empirical data compiled by Piketty:

https://dynamic.decorrespondent.nl/ff-0000000000/media/904/532e02ce5d3b05.02666184.jpg

Red = growth of capital
Turquoise = growth of the world economy

Compared to all centuries, the 20th was comparatively "more egalitarian" indeed.


That's radical. Definitely bringing Kapital to the 21st century.

There's no pretension of Piketty being "radical" in any sense. His goal was not to bring Das Kapital to the 21st century, to update Marxist economics. He does not purport to be an anticapitalist or Marxist. His book, Capital in the 21st century, concerns itself with the growth of capital vis-a-vis the growth national economies. He's never pretended to be anything more than a Keynesian so I'm not sure why you all are holding him up to the standard of a Marxist.


I've read a lot of articles about Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century in the last few days.

The fact that the bourgeois media is promoting this guy is a massive deal when you think about it. A mainstream neoclassical economist bowlderising bits from Marx

He hasn't done that, it's almost arrogant to claim so really.


Has ha r and getting to the top of the bestsellers list. 20 years ago it would never have happened. You get the feeling that the bourgeoisie knows capitalism is in a long-term crisis but can't see a way out. Certainly a return to social democracy is absolutely laughable.


They may know there's no way out but they'd never support someone who advocates the end of capitalism- the support he has is likely due to the feeling that he isn't a threat.

The popularity of his book lies in that it uses, so far irrefutable, empirical data to make his case. Journalists like the sensational aspect of that (it's sales that drive it, not a political conspiracy by the bourgeoisie), which is why he gets promoted in journalism.


He is more or less a sideshow, who will probably be forgotten in just a few days, maybe weeks.

I highly doubt this guy is anything to be terribly excited about.

You're mistaken. This is really out of touch with reality. Firstly, I've been hearing about this guy for months now, and I see no reason why this economic star will fade. Friedman had less momentum than this guy and he's still spoken about. You're seriously underestimating the significance of economists facing real empirical data, as opposed to competing abstracted models of reality. It's almost like science.


The truth is that most bourgeoisie economists, even if they're pained to admit it, have known about and acknowledged many of Marx's primary points, including his law of The Declining Rate of Profit, for many years now.

That's news to me. Do you have any sources?


------

Maybe we can objectively assess the meaning and implications of his findings, instead of bashing him based on preconceived notions and biases.... mmm'k?

[Cheese Guevara]

I'm reading this book right now. Whilst it adds "proof" to some of the "tendencies" Marx wrote of, it's nevertheless very frustrating ("capitalism can be fixed with tax and regulation!" he says).

What we now need is economists and mathematicians tracking global poverty, birth rates, bankrupcy rates, debt, wealth, energy usuage and inequality and creating a host of new formulae. I want us to be able to say X dollars of profit causes X debt, requires X energy to maintain, has a X bankrupcy ratio and requires X population increase.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ugh. Yeah, just what we needed, right? Another set of social democratic proposals to save capitalism.

Oh well, maybe it points to better days ahead. Bernie Sanders for Prez.

Also, thank-you Jacobin mag (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/intellectual-history-at-the-new-york-times/) for shameless trash-talk. I'm in complete agreement.

[Red Economist]

What we now need is economists and mathematicians tracking global poverty, birth rates, bankrupcy rates, debt, wealth, energy usuage and inequality and creating a host of new formulae. I want us to be able to say X dollars of profit causes X debt, requires X energy to maintain, has a X bankrupcy ratio and requires X population increase.

I think it's going to be unlikely. Mathematical Formula are not necessarily a reflection of reality. Economists adopted mathematics as a methodology ('econometrics' i think) partly because it made them look more scientific and (I think) there is a similar debate in Theoretical Physics as to the validity of Mathematical models. When NASA started to laying off people in the late 60's and 70's, they got hired by wall street because it was a great way of marketing financial products, especially because no-one understood what they meant but it looked 'smart'. It was the use of Mathematics that let Economists justify Sub-Prime Mortgages.

Put a 'bad mortgage' in with a basket (or group) full of good ones and it 'averages' out as a good mortgage. So that Mortgages could be traded as commodities on the market based on their credit rating. But, one of the reasons for the credit crunch was because the Banks didn't know where the bad mortgages were because they were all mixed up. So they just stopped moving the money around because they didn't know who had the mortgages that were going to default, or even if they themselves were going to default. It was a case of 'pass the bomb' until you wait to see when it goes off.

These formulas however work 'well' for the computers in the Financial sector that makes split-second trades (because timing is everything to get a good price). Of course, sometimes the formulas 'break' and the computers (or 'high frequency traders') decided to crash the stock market because they thought everyone else is going to sell, so they start dumping the stock. This is what happened in the "Flash Crash" of 2010.

So whilst the use of Mathmatics in Economics makes it look cutting edge, it really is based on a serious of vulnerable philosophical assumptions and economic practices.

[The Jay]

I think it's going to be unlikely. Mathematical Formula are not necessarily a reflection of reality. Economists adopted mathematics as a methodology ('econometrics' i think) partly because it made them look more scientific and (I think) there is a similar debate in Theoretical Physics as to the validity of Mathematical models.


I have not heard of this debate. Mathematical models are only guesses as to how things work and it is not to be assumed - by those pushing the bounds of said model - that they are correct. The validity of mathematical modelling is put under skepticism in that sense but I'm not aware of any inclination to move one to non-mathematical modelling. That would imply either some kind of idealistic philosophizing or something I've never heard of.

Your point on models not necessarily reflecting reality is correct though. I just took issue with you bringing up physics.





When NASA started to laying off people in the late 60's and 70's, they got hired by wall street because it was a great way of marketing financial products, especially because no-one understood what they meant but it looked 'smart'. It was the use of Mathematics that let Economists justify Sub-Prime Mortgages.


Sure, but what does that have to do with mathematics involved in economic analysis? It is definitely an example that would elicit a bad result, but it does nothing to counter the idea itself.



Put a 'bad mortgage' in with a basket (or group) full of good ones and it 'averages' out as a good mortgage. So that Mortgages could be traded as commodities on the market based on their credit rating. But, one of the reasons for the credit crunch was because the Banks didn't know where the bad mortgages were because they were all mixed up. So they just stopped moving the money around because they didn't know who had the mortgages that were going to default, or even if they themselves were going to default. It was a case of 'pass the bomb' until you wait to see when it goes off.

Sounds about right.


These formulas however work 'well' for the computers in the Financial sector that makes split-second trades (because timing is everything to get a good price). Of course, sometimes the formulas 'break' and the computers (or 'high frequency traders') decided to crash the stock market because they thought everyone else is going to sell, so they start dumping the stock. This is what happened in the "Flash Crash" of 2010.

So whilst the use of Mathmatics in Economics makes it look cutting edge, it really is based on a serious of vulnerable philosophical assumptions and economic practices.

Agreed, but it is still useful to radicals. The metrics would just have to be changed.

[Red Economist]

I have not heard of this debate. Mathematical models are only guesses as to how things work and it is not to be assumed - by those pushing the bounds of said model - that they are correct. The validity of mathematical modelling is put under skepticism in that sense but I'm not aware of any inclination to move one to non-mathematical modelling. That would imply either some kind of idealistic philosophizing or something I've never heard of.

Your point on models not necessarily reflecting reality is correct though. I just took issue with you bringing up physics.

I think you're right to take issue with me bringing up Physics. I think that was based on here say, so my apologies. I heard a few people might have challenged the concept of the big bang based on the fact it relies on mathematical models- but physics IS NOT an area I know well (beyond secondary school education and what I get on TV- so very basic).

In classical economics of the early 19th century- it was largely a form of philosophy that combined politics, economics, law and ethics. The philosophical side helps define the qualitative changes in the socio-economic system, whereas maths (as far as I know) relies on static assumptions about social relations and economic behavior. So using existing mathematical models will probably be a conservative approach to economics because it based on predictable interactions within market systems.


Sure, but what does that have to do with mathematics involved in economic analysis? It is definitely an example that would elicit a bad result, but it does nothing to counter the idea itself.

that is true. I suppose the use of mathematical models is dependent on the amount of certainty that is placed on them. However, I think the mathamatical approach to economics was one of the reasons for giving up the labour theory of value (LTV). whatever it's failings the LTV makes the moral case for the right of the producer/worker to own the means of production and it's products.
Mathematics is easier for a market based system using 'prices' as economic data; but the implication of course is that in order to use prices in an economic model, you must begin with the premise that the price/exchange value is both a product of rational economic behavior and that it reflects the true value or use value of the product itself.

I think in the USSR, they shifted to using a 'input-output analysis' based on physical quantities, but I don't know enough detail to know how this worked or how far it could be transformed into mathematical models. They continued to use money, but it wasn't so important as a motivation for economic activity and was used as a method of accounting. I've heard from one source (a history atlas I think) that sometime during the Khrushchev era, an idea was floated of running the USSR economy by computer and mathamatical modelling. So, I shouldn't discount it as a possibility- but most market based systems of mathematics would be made redundant by this change.


Agreed, but it is still useful to radicals. The metrics would just have to be changed.

Agreed. my initial attitude appears to be based too heavily on philosophical skepticism to be useful or practical for radicals.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would thank Tim's post a second time if I could. There's no point in criticizing non-radicals for not being radical enough. I've only read reviews of this book, but if the findings are useful to us as revolutionaries, then it's pretty silly to demand that an academic then draw the same conclusions as revolutionaries about the data.

Something is useful or not. If Marx can reas Ricardo and find useful infromation while disagreeing with the conclusions, then when books like this one become popular, we can use their findings but then fill in or correct the idological gaps or defects. The data and so on seems to back-up what we've been saying for 100+ years, his conclusions don't seem to be as useful. Good, then there's still reason to be revolutionaries and not academics:lol:

We all use bourgois environmental science data to back-up our theories about the unsustainibility of capitalist production and then the conclusion that it must be replaced. Marx used classical economic theory to help him understand class struggle. Marxist and anarchist anti-sexism and anti-racism theories depended a lot on non-revolutionary sources, etc.

It gives me more confidence in revolutionary politics when academics who have no interest in supporting these ideas and are most likely personally and politically adverse to revolution... still frequently hover around many of the insights revolutionary activists and revolutionary theorists have gained from class struggles, a working class view of capitalism, and lessons of revolutions.

[ckaihatsu]

suppose the use of mathematical models is dependent on the amount of certainty that is placed on them. However, I think the mathamatical approach to economics was one of the reasons for giving up the labour theory of value (LTV).




whatever it's failings the LTV makes the [I]moral case for the right of the producer/worker to own the means of production and it's products.


Without meaning to bicker, I'll note that the labor theory of value is *material*, and gives a material basis for showing that everyone who labors is being ripped-off, every hour of the day.


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

http://s6.postimg.org/yuivdcyy5/23_A_Business_Perspective_on_the_Declining_Rat.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/yuivdcyy5/)


Also, from another perspective:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://s6.postimage.org/f4h3589gt/11_Labor_Capital_Wages_Dividends.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/f4h3589gt/)

[BIXX]

Without meaning to bicker, I'll note that the labor theory of value is *material*, and gives a material basis for showing that everyone who labors is being ripped-off, every hour of the day.





[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit



http://s6.postimg.org/yuivdcyy5/23_A_Business_Perspective_on_the_Declining_Rat.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/yuivdcyy5/)





Also, from another perspective:





[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends



http://s6.postimage.org/f4h3589gt/11_Labor_Capital_Wages_Dividends.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/f4h3589gt/)


Shit.

I'm so confused now.

[Sea]

https://dynamic.decorrespondent.nl/ff-0000000000/media/904/532e02ce5d3b05.02666184.jpg

Red = growth of capital
Turquoise = growth of the world economyNah I'm calling poppycock on this one. Capital in 1000 A.D.? Beeeee essss. From the Man Himself:
In Italy, where capitalistic production developed earliest, the dissolution of serfdom
also took place earlier than elsewhere. The serf was emancipated in that country before
he had acquired any prescriptive right to the soil. His emancipation at once transformed
him into a free proletarian, who, moreover, found his master ready waiting for him in the
towns, for the most part handed down as legacies from the Roman time. When the
revolution of the world-market, about the end of the 15th century, annihilated Northern
Italy’s commercial supremacy, a movement in the reverse direction set in. The labourers
of the towns were driven en masse into the country, and gave an impulse, never before
seen, to the petite culture, carried on in the form of gardening.Emphasis, ofc, is all mine.
Compared to all centuries, the 20th was comparatively "more egalitarian" indeed.That's maybe because it's the only century on the chat that isn't super wrong.

[Red Economist]

Without meaning to bicker, I'll note that the labor theory of value is *material*, and gives a material basis for showing that everyone who labors is being ripped-off, every hour of the day.

That's fine. I still have very strong idealist tendencies philosophically. (For EchoShock: hence why I said it was a moral proposition or interpretation, as opposed to an objective and real material relation).

[Luís Henrique]

Nah I'm calling poppycock on this one. Capital in 1000 A.D.? Beeeee essss.

Well, I don't doubt that there was "capital' in 1000 AD - merchant capital, of course. I would have more trouble with the notion of an "economy" at that time. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that what Picketty means by "capital" includes all means of production, regardless of them being capital or not.

What I very much doubt is any reliable measuring of either "capital growth" or "economy growth" before the 19th century (and even then, I fear that reasonably reliable statistics are only available for Western Europe and the United States).

If - and that is a big IF that fully deserves the uppercase, the bold, the italics, the underlining, and the red colour, as well as many other ways to highlight the text that revleft doesn't allow us - there is some truth to it, however, then the data are quite scary. The most "egalitarian" period comes at the expense of two devastating world wars? What are we supposed to make out of that?

Luís Henrique

PS: What in Netherlands hell is "terug"?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

If - and that is a big IF that fully deserves the uppercase, the bold, the italics, the underlining, and the red colour, as well as many other ways to highlight the text that revleft doesn't allow us - there is some truth to it, however, then the data are quite scary. The most "egalitarian" period comes at the expense of two devastating world wars? What are we supposed to make out of that?
It's also the period of the war-time planned economies and the period of the post-war consensus social democracy. You could potentially take it as proof that a planned economy, even in a capitalist framework, is so obviously more capable of providing a quality improvement in the majority of people's lives that, even during the midst of devastating wars, inequality can be combated. Of course, because the fundamental aspects of capitalism remain all these gains and improvements can just as readily be reversed in the favour of the capitalist class.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

W/r/t the ever-so-equitable 20th century, I'd like to throw in my two cents and say that such a conclusion is only applicable within a very particular set of limits. Like, it only really deals with things that are quantifiable, and, in particular, quantifiable by the historiographers/economists/etc. working within a Euro-liberal framework.

Arguably, significant sections of the globe (though by no means uniformly!) were more egalitarian prior to the arrival of Eurasian merchants or colonial armies.

Also, speaking of which, wtf is the "world economy" in 1000AD, and how is it measured?

[Rafiq]

Truth does not exist without the whole truth, and it is for this reason that economics as a distinct school of thought is absolutely worthless. Economics and politics are inseparable, the death of politics is partially distinguished by the recognition of neoliberal economics as natural, and the magnitude of disagreement then only exists insofar as it presumes the laws of neoliberal economics.

[RedMaterialist]

What would Picketty's graph look like if the x-axis years were spaced proportionally?

[DOOM]

There have been many capitalist-reformist Kapital rehashes in the last century. What makes this one special?

[RedMaterialist]

There have been many capitalist-reformist Kapital rehashes in the last century. What makes this one special?

This one, I think, tries to use capitalist statistics to prove that inequality is a necessary consequence of capitalist development.

[ckaihatsu]

The most "egalitarian" period comes at the expense of two devastating world wars? What are we supposed to make out of that?


(It was because private capital was being destroyed.)

Soooooo........ Ummmmmmmmm, does that mean that equality can only exist at the price of war -- ?


(8' /

[Lynx]

If you are an economist, academic or scholar, this book is an empirical tour de force. If you are a member of the chattering classes, this is the book that "everyone" is talking about. Get your copy now!

In related news: bear shits in woods - nobody gives a crap.

[Tim Cornelis]

Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a long book, and you just don’t have time in your busy schedule to finish it and formulate a materialist critique. We’ve got you covered.

Be sure to emphasize that Piketty‘s conception of capital differs radically from Marx’s.

Note that his model is fundamentally at odds with the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.

Point out that his solution is openly reformist, and besides, would require worker militancy on a scale not witnessed in nearly a century.

Something something law of value something.

Okay, inequality. But then point out that he doesn’t explain it!

Mention in an aside his affiliation to Ségolène Royale and the PS.

Feign astonishment that people care now given that he simply codifies empirically what we already knew.

Lament his conflation of finance and industrial capitals.

Claim that you are going to buy it, though, as “the data will be useful.”

Pretty accurate.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/05/how-to-write-a-marxist-critique-of-thomas-piketty-without-actually-reading-the-book/


Nah I'm calling poppycock on this one. Capital in 1000 A.D.? Beeeee essss. From the Man Himself:Emphasis, ofc, is all mine.That's maybe because it's the only century on the chat that isn't super wrong.



Surprisingly Piketty doesn't use the Marxist definition of 'capital'.



What I very much doubt is any reliable measuring of either "capital growth" or "economy growth" before the 19th century (and even then, I fear that reasonably reliable statistics are only available for Western Europe and the United States).

I do too. What I've gathered from articles about his book is that he went back to the 18th century, so maybe the rest is inferred or extrapolated?




PS: What in Netherlands hell is "terug"?

Back. Capital's back. Pretty stupid caption, I suppose it references that its conventional growth rate is back as it was.

[blake 3:17]

To summarize so far, Thomas Piketty’s book about capital is neither about capital in the sense used by Marx nor about the physical capital that serves as a factor of production in the neoclassical model of economic growth. It is a book mainly about the valuation placed on tangible and financial assets, the distribution of those assets through time, and the inheritance of wealth from one generation to the next.

Why is this interesting? Adam Smith wrote the definitive one-sentence treatment: “Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power.” Private financial valuation measures power, including political power, even if the holder plays no active economic role. Absentee landlords and the Koch brothers have power of this type. Piketty calls it “patrimonial capitalism”—in other words, not the real thing.

The old system of high marginal tax rates was effective in its time. But would it work to go back to that system now? Alas, it would not.
Thanks to the French Revolution, registry of wealth and inheritance has been good in Piketty’s homeland for a long time. This allows Piketty to show how the simple determinants of the concentration of wealth are the rate of return on assets and the rates of economic and population growth. If the rate of return exceeds the growth rate, then the rich and the elderly gain in relation to everyone else. Meanwhile, inheritances depend on the extent to which the elderly accumulate—which is greater the longer they live—and on the rate at which they die. These two forces yield a flow of inheritances that Piketty estimates to be about 15 percent of annual income presently in France—astonishingly high for a factor that gets no attention at all in newspapers or textbooks.

Moreover, for France, Germany, and Britain, the “inheritance flow” has been rising since 1980, from negligible levels to substantial ones, due to a higher rate of return on financial assets along with a slightly rising mortality rate in an older population. The trend seems likely to continue—though one wonders about the effect of the financial crisis on valuations. Piketty also shows (to the small extent that data allow) that the share of global wealth held by a tiny group of billionaires has been rising much more rapidly than average global income.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twenty-first-century

[Luís Henrique]

Back. Capital's back.

Ah, like 'zuruck'. Makes some sence now, though I must agree with the following:


Pretty stupid caption, I suppose it references that its conventional growth rate is back as it was.

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

Can any economists say whether Picketty's "r" and "g" are standard economic terms or whether he just made them up? Also, is "return on capital" just another way of saying rate of profit and is "growth" GDP?

His main chart shows a huge drop in r from about 1800 to 1915 or so. But that is the period when capitalism began to show its largest profit growth.

Does Picketty say anything about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall?

Anybody know if any Marxists like Cockshott, Wolff, etc. have reviewed the book.

[Црвена]

I'm surprised the stupid bourgeois media aren't censoring this! They're finally allowing some degree of free thought. That's progress.

[ComradeOm]

I've not read Piketty's book yet (waiting for the paperback) but his conclusions appear important in understanding the evolution of capitalism over the past century. Crucially, he seems to have proven that the post-war growth of consumer capitalism (in which inequalities were narrowed to the point that the proletariat shared in the economic gains) was in fact an aberration, no doubt caused by the presence of strong labour movements. What we are seeing today may not be 'late capitalism' (eg capitalism in decay) but a simple reversion to capitalism's 'natural' path in which rising inequality is inevitable.

Which may be a 'well, duh' moment for some here but I'm quite happy to have someone come along and statistically prove it.


I'm surprised the stupid bourgeois media aren't censoring this! They're finally allowing some degree of free thought. That's progress.I don't think there's ever been a ban on economic works in Western democracies. That said, the Financial Times did quibble with some of the numbers/conclusions; the Economist has a summary of the dispute here (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21603022-latest-controversy-around-thomas-pikettys-blockbuster-book-concerns-its).

[Ven0m]

i have not read the book but there have been a slew of anti-capitalist books written recently topping the best sellers. a financial collapse will do this. i like Hoon's 23 things they don't tell you about Capitalism
theguardian.com/books/2010/oct/25/things-tell-capitalism-hajoon-chang

[Ven0m]

They may know there's no way out but they'd never support someone who advocates the end of capitalism-

what do you mean "support"? bourgeois have no long term vision. only the short term $, that is why Marx says they are their own grave-diggers. they will sell anything if there is a profit to be made. Das Kapital iitself was up the top of the best sellers list in germany right after the 2008 crisis. there is even a Penguin edition of Capital fuck me. the bourgeois are not some conspiratorial cabal trying to keep the truth away from the people. They are just shortsighted profiteers, no more no less.