Who Is Thomas Piketty And Why Has The Obama White House Rolled Out The Red Carpet For Him?

This is not new thinking and rather a plagiarized idea from Vilfredo Pareto, Pareto efficiency, that unbalanced wealth promotes political turmoil and that there is a set balance of poor to middle class to rich that strikes a balance of sort between society and governance, and that any leanings towards either spectrum leads to eventual violence and upheaval of some sort.

Why these people over the years are presented as new thinkers I don't know. Perhaps they avoid referencing Pareto because he's forever linked to the fascist movement of the early 20th century.

This the frog that cites karl marx?

KYPD

No surprise to me - That’s completely in line with Obama’s thinking that it’s government’s job to “correct” the imbalance of wealth in the country.

Piketty is just another leftist loser from the world of academe who envies the wealthy. Like many other leftists, Piketty would like to be wealthy and famous...without working too hard that is. So ignoring the fact that many wealthy people worked harder and smarter than many non-wealthy people, he will make things fair for the non-wealthy.

In Piketty's wonderful world of equality, everybody will work just as hard. The poor and oppressed will work just as hard even though they will be handed a guaranteed income. And of course the wealthy will work hard so that their wealth can be taken away from them. Piketty's ideas are insane.

excellent

how disturbing is it that this is yet another reminder that Americans have twice “elected” a radical president who so despises capitalism, free enterprise and individual
liberty?

Dr. Limbaugh eloquently refuted Piketty last week. He showed that only 13% of the "1%" stays in the one percent in any 10 years. In America, people make and lose millions. I know that one year, my wife and I were making a 6-figure income, the next year we were underemployed and on food stamps, and now we're back to making mid-5 figures. I can see us moving back into the 6-figure income family soon.

Obama and the Democrats want us to ALL be peasants.

Thank you. I’m going to look into the Pareto efficiency. Sounds logical.

This is not new thinking and rather a plagiarized idea from Vilfredo Pareto, Pareto efficiency, that unbalanced wealth promotes political turmoil and that there is a set balance of poor to middle class to rich that strikes a balance of sort between society and governance, and that any leanings towards either spectrum leads to eventual violence and upheaval of some sort.

What heads to unbalanced wealth is government. When the wealthy capture government to the point where they can use it to advantage themselves and DISadvantage any potential competitor, THEN you get social imbalance.

In the past you had hereditary nobility. In the present, you have "old rich" families who are heavily connected into the political class.

Another islamist or facilitator.

Perhaps they avoid referencing Pareto because he's forever linked to the fascist movement of the early 20th century.

Crony Capitalism is Fascism wearing a velvet glove to cover the iron fist of tyrannical government.

Property taxes are a partial wealth tax as are estate taxes.

Government creates problems, and then it creates bigger problems by growing to solve the problems it creates.

We need politicians and government officials who read good literature about the economy, and how not to screw it up, but we have commies who want to destroy private wealth, and they read how to books that help them do it.

Keep your powder dry?

Obama and the Democrats want us to ALL be peasants.

As the saying goes, under capitalism some people are poor. Under socialism all people are poor.

The book tells what 0bama wants to do to the USA. He’s not finished yet.

Yup.

Brain sharp, kit in order.

Cheers

Rich people stay rich. Then set up protectionist policies to prevent competition. They collude with government, and such. People can throw hissy fits, but this is the reality. Piketty simply put it to paper. And at the same time, the middle class is dissolving from various trade agreements, illegal immigration, and overall global wage arbitrage.

The answer to Piketty's rants was written decades ago: Hayak's Road to Serfdom

Decent write-up by Greg Mankiw*, below:

First Thoughts on Piketty

I have been reading Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century." It is truly an impressive work, and I am much enjoying it. I have recently organized a session at the upcoming AEA meeting (January in Boston), where David Weil, Alan Auerbach, and I will be discussing the book, followed by a response from Professor Piketty.

Let me offer a few immediate reactions.

The book has three main elements:

A history of inequality and wealth.
A forecast of how things will evolve over the next century
Policy recommendations, such as a global tax on wealth.
Point 1 is a significant contribution. I like this part of the book a lot.

Point 2 is highly conjectural. Economists are really bad at such things. In particular, the leap from r>g to the conclusion of a growing role of inheritance in society seems too large to me. Many capital owners consume much of the return on their capital, so wealth does not grow at rate r. This consumption ranges from fancy cars and luxurious vacations to generous charitable giving. In addition, unless mating is perfectly assortative, or we return to an era of primogeniture, wealth per family shrinks as it is split among children. So, from my perspective, Pikettty tries to draw way too much from r>g. (Quick Quiz for econonerds: (a) What does r>g tell you in a standard overlapping generations model? (b) And what is the magnitude of bequests in that model? Answers below.*)

Point 3 is as much about Piketty’s personal political philosophy as it is about his economics. As we all know, you can’t get “ought” from “is.” Like President Obama and others on the left, Piketty wants to spread the wealth around. Another philosophical viewpoint is that it is the government’s job to enforce rules such as contracts and property rights and promote opportunity rather than to achieve a particular distribution of economic outcomes. No amount of economic history will tell you that John Rawls (and Thomas Piketty) offers a better political philosophy than Robert Nozick (and Milton Friedman).

The bottom line: You can appreciate his economic history without buying into his forecast. And even if you are convinced by his forecast, you don't have to buy into his normative conclusions.
-------
* Answers to quiz: (a) That the economy is dynamically efficient (that is, it has not over-accumulated capital). (b) Zero.

_____
*I know, he has his detractors.