Capital in the Twenty-First Century – Thomas Piketty

preview_player
Показать описание
What are the grand dynamics that drive the accumulation and distribution of capital? Questions about the long-term evolution of inequality, the concentration of wealth, and the prospects for economic growth lie at the heart of political economy. But satisfactory answers have been hard to find for lack of adequate data and clear guiding theories.

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, economist Thomas Piketty analyzes a unique collection of data from twenty countries, ranging as far back as the eighteenth century, to uncover key economic and social patterns. His findings will transform debate and set the agenda for the next generation of thought about wealth and inequality.

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

00:01 - My book is trying to puts facts and to put history and to put data in one of the most controversial issues in history, which is the issue of inequality and unequal income and wealth.

thomasd
Автор

the problem here is that definition of capital has changed over time. In ante bellum us, capital included property in the form of slaves. Fifty years ago the assets on the balance sheets of most major corporations in advanced economies were mainly machines, buildings and inventories. Today around 80 per  cent is in the form of non-tangibles and intangibles. in service firms, most assets are things economists 50 years ago wouldn't have considered to be things. The fastest growing element of corporate balance sheets are intangibles. The  biggest change in capital therefore is not its growth, but  how it is defined. this is socially determined, like slavery. It has nothing to do with economic theory.

edmundosullivan
Автор

Of course what he's saying is essentially true, but it's amazing that such a self-evident phenomenon - the concentration of wealth among the super-rich - is in any way newsworthy, let alone the basis for an acclaimed book. It's obvious that the trend that Piketty describes, combined with the dumbing down of the education system and the wider culture, have ensured that what ought to be a fairly transparent - and politically reversible - development is an occult process in need of explanation by a high-powered academic in the first instance to his fellow academics and other pundits. On a somewhat trivial note, it's bizarre that such a highly educated man - and an alumnus of the LSE, moreover - should sound like Inspector Clouseau.

Khayyam-vgfw
Автор

i just pre-ordered on audible--it comes out may 22

noblebrown
Автор

Best way of bridging the divide between Capital and Labour?

kayedal-haddad
Автор

From my point of view the crucial question is the rate of return on human 90% and physical 10% capital. He did not analyze moral, intellectual, and social capital. Without it we are not capable to understand economic problem.

alauc
Автор

While I don't agree with all what he said, I appreciate that a French guy like me, makes efforts to speak English. However, I think he should improve his accent :-) Joke put aside, I know people who had basically nothing to start and who are now managing big companies which make much money and have big success. It is not easy, but not impossible. I don't believe in fatality. Instead of closing doors, we should open new ones, especially in France.

YayaBolender
Автор

Democracy in the workplace.

Abolish all positions on the boards of directors. Let workers vote on what they want to spend surpluses on.

DragAmiot
Автор

@Lance- Thank you for being a sounding board for the issue. Your stance rings hollow. The ideas you have adopted are a hedge for "The Prisoner's Dilemma." There are global equilibria that are more beneficial to you and your progeny. 

kavalkid
Автор

This guy manages to be such a neanderthal and a brilliant person at the same time

leooiler
Автор

The problem with #anticapitalists  and #socialisteconomists  

LanceWinslow