Capital & idéologie - Conférence de Thomas Piketty

Toutes les sociétés humaines ont besoin de justifier leurs inégalités: il faut leur trouver des raisons, faute de quoi c’est l’ensemble de l’édifice politique et social qui menace de s’effondrer. Les idéologies du passé, si on les étudie de près, ne sont à cet égard pas toujours plus folles que celles du présent. C’est en montrant la multiplicité des trajectoires et des bifurcations possibles que l’on peut interroger les fondements de nos propres institutions et envisager les conditions de leur transformation.

À partir de données comparatives d’une ampleur et d’une profondeur considérables, Thomas Piketty retrace dans une perspective tout à la fois économique, sociale, intellectuelle et politique l’histoire et le devenir des régimes inégalitaires, depuis les sociétés trifonctionnelles et esclavagistes anciennes jusqu’aux sociétés postcoloniales et hypercapitalistes modernes, en passant par les sociétés propriétaristes, coloniales, communistes et sociales démocrates. À l’encontre du récit hyperinégalitaire qui s’est imposé depuis les années 1980-1990, il montre que c’est le combat pour l’égalité et l’éducation, et non pas la sacralisation de la propriété, qui a permis le développement économique et le progrès humain.

En s’appuyant sur les leçons de l’histoire globale, il est possible de rompre avec le fatalisme qui nourrit les dérives identitaires actuelles et d’imaginer un socialisme participatif pour le xxie siècle: un nouvel horizon égalitaire à visée universelle, une nouvelle idéologie de l’égalité, de la propriété sociale, de l’éducation et du partage des savoirs et des pouvoirs.

[theneon]

Merci pour la conférence, le son est bon, ce qui est à souligner !

[jeromegarnier]

bravo, merci

7:00 début de l'exposé de T. Piketty
17:00 révolution Française, remise en cause de la propriété privée.
31:30 réduction des inégalités XXieme siècle
Les crises économiques sont mêlées avec des enjeux politiques et idéologiques. 43:45 et 50:19 Les crises et les geurres sont parfois ont parfois des conséquences économiques mais parfois le lien de causalité est inverse.
33:30 devellopement de l état social
35:21 mise en place de l impôt sur le revenu tardif, 1914 en France.
45:50 la dette publique du milieu du XXieme est la conséquence de la première guerre mondial. Vite résorbé par l inflation. L inflation est un impot sur le patrimoine des plus pauvres.
48:31 les riches du milieu XXieme sont les héritiers des actifs coloniaux.
50:16 remontée des inégalités depuis 1980
50:40 les ideologies sont la cause majeur des évolutions économiques.
52:08 chute du communisme, les oligarques capturent la richesse
52:29 contournement du système légal en russie ee Poutine
52:56 aucun impôt progressif en russie
53:28 aucun impot sur les successions en Chine et Russie
55:16 Reagan, assumé avec une promesse de ruissellement.
57:22 taux de croissance
1:02:24 le vote à gauche n'est pas un vote des classes populaires.
1:11:56 inégalité entre pays, est et ouest de l'Europe, néocolonialisme ?
1:17:22 une monnaie unique devrait aller avec une dette unique et des taux d intérêt non différencié
1:19:00 réponse institutionnelle, la création monétaire, taille des banques centrales, crise de 2008 du niveau des guerres mondiales. Financement des transitions écologiques et rôle de la monnaie.
1:22:09 piste pour l avenir, justice educative, partage du pouvoir cogestion, impot progressif, taxation des patrimoines.
1:25:12 question sur les inégalités globales, réponse entre 1980 et maintenant.
1:35:00 revenu universel, héritage pour tous, impot sur les patrimoines ISF et pas attendre l impot successoral.

[ricardomurillo]

J'avais vu la pub dans le tram mais n'avais pas pu assister. Merci Merci. Invitez Thomas encore.

[huguesleterme]

Merci pour l'enregistrement et le partage.

[berthonypierrin]

Un très bon travail ! Merci beaucoup !

[coolbertgzz]

Estoy aprendiendo francés escuchando al profesor Piketty ;)

[AraMacaraig]

The speaker presents his topic clearly .meaning he has much knowledge when it comes to economics iideology even thou he present in his own dialect or language..i really and slowly understand hs language.It depends upon the presentor on how the aidience react upon his topic..When it comes to university, its quite conducive to learning outcomes..i hope the presentor brings more knowledge on the part of the audience and his Prof Piketty for the job well done
❤

[benoitlagarrigue]

Je découvre Thomas Piketty et je trouve son travail sur les inégalités et la répartition des richesses intéressant. J'apprécie également son ouverture, sa volonté de discuter, de trouver des consensus et surtout d'informer les gens. Par contre je conteste le lien qui est fait entre croissance économique et investissement éducatif. Je rejoins en effet l'idée de Jean Marc Jancovici qui fait le lien entre énergie et croissance, en particulier entre pétrole et croissance. C'est une donnée qui est malheureusement absente chez de nombreux économistes.

[MsMattmatt]

Merci pour cette conférence.
À 1:29:28, le monsieur qui pose la question m'a touché. Il demande en gros si il n'y a pas moyen de redistribuer les richesses sans que les riches en pâtissent.
Cette question qui pourrait paraître stupide au premier abord, montre que certains ont vraiment cru à ce mythe du "il n'y a pas de lutte de classe, chacun par son intérêt personnel va rendre la société meilleure".
Ça m'a touché, car j'ai vu chez ce monsieur une grande sincérité dans sa question. Ça doit être une désillusion terrible.

[mamadoualioubah]

Bonne prestations et bravo à l'université que je rêve d'intégrer

[jofarina]

Un Grand Merci de ton magnifique document que nos responsables politiques devront prendre connaissance avant tous engagement dans leurs décisions lors de leurs mandats. Amicalement je fais suivre sans modération votre document. JO

[michelmichel]

un grand homme, les politiques doivent cesser d'être professionnels.
j'espère que le grand public comprendra, normalement on dit que le
peuple à un bon sens

[cybergazouille]

Si simple et si lumineux que Piketty devient 'l'ennemi intérieur" ; cette semaine, même le Canard Enchainé participe au raid médiatique "haro sur Piketty"

[gcecam]

Fabuleux! Le Prince HAPPI CHRISTIAN WILSON

[tefakatsuki]

trop triste de l'avoir loupé a l'époque

[boubouneff]

Fort interessant et instructif. Merci!
Une remarque toutefois: Piketty parle constemment de pays communistes. Or il n y a jamais existé de pays communistes. Tout au plus des pays se prétendant socialistes.
ça sert beaucoup a la bourgeoisie d entendre répéter que le (prétendu) communisme a échoué.

[Bibiism]

Jeunes amis suisses, la prochaine fois invitez Francis Cousin.

[maspification]

Comment peut on récompenser d'un prix Nobel un économiste de nos jours !!!

[IKnowNeonLights]

Part one

I have no idea what the word means, and as a consequence it would be (rightly) logical for me to firmly believe that no one else should have any idea either in relation to the meaning of the word. Now surly there is no harm in that!?!? And the answer lies with and within exactly what I am at any given point of a contact. Because as it is established that in order for me to be what (I am), and knowing full well how such possible combinations of (I am) have come into existence throughout history....! Then a lot of people, land, and structures have to make sure that becomes a reality. Making the perfect terrain for a most formidable and destructive paradox. That of knowing full well of what I am every single day at any given point of contact with and within the very civilization...! At most points simultaneously I am not, nor have ever been, and if whole structures and systems exist and continue to develop in order to tell me that (I am) and especially make sure that (I am) when and if I want to....! That will get you....! A democracy problem and a climate related catastrophe problem. Simply because more and more millions of you and I am, when in fact you and I, are not.
Should.... has nothing to do with it.

A holy man lived not long ago in a rural and mountainous area. He was well and in many cases extremely known and desired to be known by anyone living in and around the area. If and when encountered, his appearance (for anyone not aware what the term ((holy, man, or holy man)) means, or as in this case specifically with him), would surpass anything known and referred to as (hermit or a street beggar). Something that was not just overridden by anyone who understood the precise form of being, in fact it was not even present, seen, sensed or understood if and when anyone else that did not, would be pointing at, following the most sound reason and logic always. Which in this case would be the appearance of someone, the appearance of a human being, or as I am specifically referring to, a holy man.

No one would ever know where he was going or where he was coming from, (obviously). Although out of the blue, or as a premonition the holy man would appear at the house of anyone for the day, for the night, for a drink of water, for a rest, for a talk, or for a greeting, and it mattered not. What mattered was the fact, that he was there, triggering what is known in all cultures, as hospitality norms. One night, it had been raining a lot, and the holy man approached a house. The house belonged to a young couple. Upon answering the call, the young man recognised the holy man straight away, and rushed with all of his being to welcoming him inside the house. While doing so, and exchanging greetings with the holy man, the young man asks his wife to make a place ready at the guest room next to the fire place, (obviously). The young woman rushes to do so, (obviously), but while doing so and having made use of the best reason and logic, in relation to the appearance of the holy man and a heavy raining night being the main ingredient for anyone traveling outside at that She quickly thinks on her feet, and swaps the usual best covers, skins, pillows, and ornaments that are always stationary at the guest room, with the equally next best covers, skins, pillows and ornaments that are held as a reserve, not at the guest room.

The holy man walks in together with the couple inside the guest room, takes his appointed place next to the fire, drinks and food are present and husband and wife are there to look after all of his needs, (obviously). After a little while, the young wife cannot help but see with her own eyes, dirt dripping off the clothes of the holy man, yet not one single stain is there to be seen on the equally next best covers, skins, pillows and ornaments. She is mesmerized, but pull's herself together and focuses on being as hospitable as she and her husband can be, (obviously). The night passes and the morning is present. The holy man has to leave. He thanks both husband and wife, but turns to the woman and says....! ((You tried last night to avoid dirt, where there was no dirt to be found, and as a consequence of that, you will struggle all of your life to avoid dirt, where there is no dirt to be found.)) It is still told that the more that house was cleaned, the more dirt was noticed by anyone entering it.

I believe that in many cases, (honor) is mistaken and confused with power, money, speed, strength, endurance, knowledge, wisdom, numbers etc etc. It's true meaning is connected to the concept of a (door), and if going very far back it's meaning is connected to (smoke), which is the original concept of (a door) still in use at a very specific basilica or many many other similar places. It has to do with the ability of anyone in using all what is recognised and understood as power, money, speed, strength, endurance, bravery, knowledge, wisdom, numbers etc etc....! At the right weight of being, for the moment, the location and contact. No more and no less. Resulting in a honourable connection, (a door/smoke).

When this is, was, and continues to be taken by anyone in relation to anyone else, through all sorts of means that are highly reasoned and The system used is flawed. Especially if any system advocates for a free existence of being for anyone with and within. If on the other hand any system aims to have a very large number of beings, lead at any moment, location, for any reason and logic, (here) or (there)....! Then that system, any system operating in such a manner, is against or in direct opposition with another system or a combination of many systems. Making the consequential being with and within such a system, not free, but highly constrained to (here) or (there) the system is aiming at, for all the best reasons and logic it needs to.

What can help in such a case that I allude to. Clarity and rules that help in understanding and maintaining that clarity. Once there, then a question of....! What is debt for the highest number of the world's population...! Can be easily understood as an answer. More to it...! Can anyone buy debt!?! Who can buy debt!?!? How can anyone buy debt!?! And...! What does anyone that has bought debt, acquires!?!?

Recently I was listening to two "debates" of sorts. One stating that (a systemic change is needed). The other stating that (we have a right to die). Both "debates" are an eventuality of not having clarity, together with the rules that help in understanding and maintaining that clarity.
For the first one....all anyone needs to ask is...! What is the state!?!? As a free existence of being....! Then earth and knowledge in relation to begin on earth, fulfills all aspects. As a constrained existence of being, having to be lead (here) and (there) as a consequential of being in direct opposition with a system or combinations of any systems, for all the reasons and logic the constrained existence of being requires....! Then a strategy, the best strategy will fulfill all aspects.

The second one, refers to some kind of defined right, in law, that anyone could make use in terminating their own life, through assistance or help. And as with the first one, the clarity of what is the state, is completely ignored. In this case, a human being body, with all of its sensory process, a nervous system, organ systems, without mentioning a thought system, or a spiritual one. Yet while anyone "knowing" about all of this personally, and as full contact observation with billions of others, anyone (for some reason and logic) uses the argument....! That anyone has the right to not feel pain and suffering, calling up dignity for a human being body system. Which would point to the fact, that anyone in such a process of reason and logic, is at war with their very own human being body system, and is determined to win no matter what, even by destroying it. ((All of this after thousands of years in scientific advancement)).

[thibautsauve]

Dommage que le chapitre 4 soit si peu développé, je vais devoir regarder une autre conférence !!