11:40 for professional reasons, so moving to see credit, applause, and visibility so generously given to the translator of the book. A rare occurrence for translators indeed!
To critique Stephen's comments: @1:27:26. "Doesn't say anything about what's causing what." It does actually. For starters, tax policy, 1940-1980 when top tax rates were around 90-60%. 1:28:43 "Leave the poor out of this, they don't save." His argument in that graph leaves out at least 80% of the population.
It is worth adding to this discussion that a serious analytical problem is created by the failure on the part of most economists (and even other social scientists) to distinguish between gains associated with financial transactions and gains associated with actual capital goods. And, of course, in the real world capital goods do not appreciate in value; they depreciate down to scrap value, even though during the life of a building or machine or even a software program the asset requires ongoing infusion of labor and new capital goods just to maintain functional utility. What are the consequences of this failure? The easiest to identify is the declaration of gains on the sale of assets as "capital gains" and, on the theory that such gains should be encouraged, the rate of taxation imposed on such gains is kept lower (and often far lower) than income earned by producing goods and services.
The purchases of the underprivileged are consumed and their value is destroyed in the act of consumption, whereas over 90 percent of those of the privileged produce wealth and continue to produce wealth. When will the marginal increase of wealth at the top level off? Never. How much do the wealthy want? They want it all.
Some economists point out that what drives economic growth is the constant turnover of the kinds of goods consumed every day (e.g., toothpaste, toilet paper, food, etc.). Is it the disinterested holders of share of stock who are producing these and other goods? Do these shareholders actually provide the financial reserves to facility production? The answer is essentially "No." When a corporation first issues and sells shares of stock this provides the finances for production. But, the secondary market for shares merely shifts gains and losses from one group of shareholders to another. Note that the nominal exchange value of shares of stock depends on how financial advisers and investors believe a stock will perform going forward and not necessarily on the underlying viability of the business activity undertaken. You do make a very interesting point. How much wealth do the wealthy need to live a comfortable existence? For some, there is no limit to the level of greed and conspicuous consumption. So long as the degree of privilege continues to exist under our systems of law and taxation, this will only get worse and destroy what is left of equality of opportunity.
His book inspire his students in tertiary level..He shows how he presents his book in a polite and educational manner..Its not easy for me to catch his accent fluently but i tried my best .To explain further and foremost he depend much his book like others say "the battle of the accent".Congratulayions Prof Piketty See u lately...❤❤❤
A phd in comparative political economy would help haha. Seriously though, I highly recommend banerjee and duflo’s 2019 book. They also tackle inequality, but you’ll probably be able to follow 100% of it. They have a unique skill for communicating highly technical economic concepts in lay-comprehensible, totally digestible ways. And, they’re entertaining.
At last someone who knows what's wrong with the advanced and developing economies. Focus to be more on people at the bottom of the workforce and their disparities.
supply and demand models only are meaningful in a free market . the stock market is a 1 percent market that excludes stakehokders of the society and is not a sustainable economic arrangement.
It's often true that super wealthy people live in more misery than the average middle class worker. People rely on them for an income and to support their families. They often can't just take time off and do whatever they want, their customers expectations are ever growing, the market demand is ever more competitive, the legal system is ever present, the tax system and laws are constantly putting pressure on their sales model and profit margins. On top of this, they still get divorced, they still get stalked and harassed, they still get death threats and hate mail, they still get people quitting, or stealing trade secrets etc. They still have china doing everything they can to copy and produce the same product for cheaper with slave labour.
I guess rich people are a scape goat for the many unsatisfied, since they can do almost nothing with most of their money, while in other hands this money would disappear. Hope Piketty proves the contrary.
What is inherently bad about income inequality or percentage of people in a middle class? It's like remarking about how many men currently qualified to compete in the Mr. Olympia contest and saying this is bad that such a small number of men were able to create such a huge gap between the average physique and theirs.
Because it's ultimately unsustainable. It results in more bubbles as private debt finds different assets to hide in. The middle class is the key to the economy because they push the demand side of the lever. Supply will always follow demand, not the other way around.
TimeAttack for this analogy to be correct, the vast majority of Mr. Olympia contestants would need to have been born with superior physical inheritance from their fathers that allowed them to grow muscle at 10x, 20x or 100x the average wannabe Mr. Olympia who was not so fortunate to be bestowed such physical gifts. Inequality isn’t inherently bad, not many people truly want to live in a world where everyone earns and owns the same amount of wealth regardless of talents, aspirations and genuine effort. I don’t want to live in that world. But you must be able to distinguish the nuance between total equality (not ideal) and simply a more equal world, where we don’t create more & more billionaires while there are still literally tens of millions of people in the same country (in the US case) that live below the poverty line. Today, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is ever-increasing and history shows us that when this wealth gap is perpetually exacerbated, revolutions occur.
@@Murdockkkkkkkkkk you show me someone in the bottom half of the health scale in America, massively obese and heart issues, maybe cancer and tumors. Then you show me a small time bodybuilder that wins in his own small town. To tell me the divide there is not millionaire to poverty level is just silly.
@@Murdockkkkkkkkkk take the analogy to a silly extreme and imagine a literal superman from another planet, a mortal being that just happened to have a trillion times more strength. Would it make any sense to spend your life trying to restrict his strength or bitching about how much stronger this being is than you?
Because extreme inequality leads to an unstable and unjust world where a small group of people are able to exercise an unmerited level of political and social power to benefit themselves to the detriment of everyone else. Your bodybuilding analogy is utter nonsense and indicates that you haven't really thought about it in any depth.
11:40 for professional reasons, so moving to see credit, applause, and visibility so generously given to the translator of the book. A rare occurrence for translators indeed!
To critique Stephen's comments: @1:27:26. "Doesn't say anything about what's causing what." It does actually. For starters, tax policy, 1940-1980 when top tax rates were around 90-60%. 1:28:43 "Leave the poor out of this, they don't save." His argument in that graph leaves out at least 80% of the population.
It is worth adding to this discussion that a serious analytical problem is created by the failure on the part of most economists (and even other social scientists) to distinguish between gains associated with financial transactions and gains associated with actual capital goods. And, of course, in the real world capital goods do not appreciate in value; they depreciate down to scrap value, even though during the life of a building or machine or even a software program the asset requires ongoing infusion of labor and new capital goods just to maintain functional utility.
What are the consequences of this failure? The easiest to identify is the declaration of gains on the sale of assets as "capital gains" and, on the theory that such gains should be encouraged, the rate of taxation imposed on such gains is kept lower (and often far lower) than income earned by producing goods and services.
+Edward Dodson Insightful, thanks
The purchases of the underprivileged are consumed and their value is destroyed in the act of consumption, whereas over 90 percent of those of the privileged produce wealth and continue to produce wealth. When will the marginal increase of wealth at the top level off? Never. How much do the wealthy want? They want it all.
Some economists point out that what drives economic growth is the constant turnover of the kinds of goods consumed every day (e.g., toothpaste, toilet paper, food, etc.). Is it the disinterested holders of share of stock who are producing these and other goods? Do these shareholders actually provide the financial reserves to facility production? The answer is essentially "No." When a corporation first issues and sells shares of stock this provides the finances for production. But, the secondary market for shares merely shifts gains and losses from one group of shareholders to another. Note that the nominal exchange value of shares of stock depends on how financial advisers and investors believe a stock will perform going forward and not necessarily on the underlying viability of the business activity undertaken.
You do make a very interesting point. How much wealth do the wealthy need to live a comfortable existence? For some, there is no limit to the level of greed and conspicuous consumption. So long as the degree of privilege continues to exist under our systems of law and taxation, this will only get worse and destroy what is left of equality of opportunity.
😂😂すさ１１１１１１号線?とします１１１１１１１１１交換!?。?ヲイワエについてでおしょうかが御
His book inspire his students in tertiary level..He shows how he presents his book in a polite and educational manner..Its not easy for me to catch his accent fluently but i tried my best
.To explain further and foremost he depend much his book like others say "the battle of the accent".Congratulayions Prof Piketty
See u lately...❤❤❤
I have no idea what I just watched (for the most part) but I am damn interested in figuring it out. Thank you for the video.
A phd in comparative political economy would help haha. Seriously though, I highly recommend banerjee and duflo’s 2019 book. They also tackle inequality, but you’ll probably be able to follow 100% of it. They have a unique skill for communicating highly technical economic concepts in lay-comprehensible, totally digestible ways. And, they’re entertaining.
This video helped to broaden my understanding of capitalism, the wealthy, inequality in the US and the world
At last someone who knows what's wrong with the advanced and developing economies. Focus to be more on people at the bottom of the workforce and their disparities.
supply and demand models only are meaningful in a free market . the stock market is a 1 percent market that excludes stakehokders of the society and is not a sustainable economic arrangement.
На канале в моем профиле смотрите свежий ролик о Томасе Пикетти и его идеях⚡ В ролике проведены сравнения некоторых идей Маркса и Пикетти.
that very good
It's often true that super wealthy people live in more misery than the average middle class worker. People rely on them for an income and to support their families. They often can't just take time off and do whatever they want, their customers expectations are ever growing, the market demand is ever more competitive, the legal system is ever present, the tax system and laws are constantly putting pressure on their sales model and profit margins. On top of this, they still get divorced, they still get stalked and harassed, they still get death threats and hate mail, they still get people quitting, or stealing trade secrets etc. They still have china doing everything they can to copy and produce the same product for cheaper with slave labour.
I guess rich people are a scape goat for the many unsatisfied, since they can do almost nothing with most of their money, while in other hands this money would disappear. Hope Piketty proves the contrary.
an interesting perspective on inequality is that it is primarily due to skill shortage rather than inter-generational concentration of wealth
interesting? i guess you meant to say wrong
It's not interesting, it's outdated. It's the basic myth of Social Darwinism.
what if the skill shortage is explained by the inter-generational concentration of wealth?
The commentators are so off-point - there is an impression that they didn't understand the book.
War, war never change.
只有战争和革命么？真是灰暗的未来呢。
Thomas Piketty在法国的一个节目上说，革命不一定是坏事。
What is inherently bad about income inequality or percentage of people in a middle class?
It's like remarking about how many men currently qualified to compete in the Mr. Olympia contest and saying this is bad that such a small number of men were able to create such a huge gap between the average physique and theirs.
Because it's ultimately unsustainable. It results in more bubbles as private debt finds different assets to hide in. The middle class is the key to the economy because they push the demand side of the lever. Supply will always follow demand, not the other way around.
TimeAttack for this analogy to be correct, the vast majority of Mr. Olympia contestants would need to have been born with superior physical inheritance from their fathers that allowed them to grow muscle at 10x, 20x or 100x the average wannabe Mr. Olympia who was not so fortunate to be bestowed such physical gifts.
Inequality isn’t inherently bad, not many people truly want to live in a world where everyone earns and owns the same amount of wealth regardless of talents, aspirations and genuine effort. I don’t want to live in that world.
But you must be able to distinguish the nuance between total equality (not ideal) and simply a more equal world, where we don’t create more & more billionaires while there are still literally tens of millions of people in the same country (in the US case) that live below the poverty line.
Today, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is ever-increasing and history shows us that when this wealth gap is perpetually exacerbated, revolutions occur.
@@Murdockkkkkkkkkk you show me someone in the bottom half of the health scale in America, massively obese and heart issues, maybe cancer and tumors. Then you show me a small time bodybuilder that wins in his own small town. To tell me the divide there is not millionaire to poverty level is just silly.
@@Murdockkkkkkkkkk take the analogy to a silly extreme and imagine a literal superman from another planet, a mortal being that just happened to have a trillion times more strength. Would it make any sense to spend your life trying to restrict his strength or bitching about how much stronger this being is than you?
Because extreme inequality leads to an unstable and unjust world where a small group of people are able to exercise an unmerited level of political and social power to benefit themselves to the detriment of everyone else. Your bodybuilding analogy is utter nonsense and indicates that you haven't really thought about it in any depth.
This guy wants to impose laws to fix something but hasn't proved why it's wrong to begin with.
What Are you,, 15?
He extensively explains it in the book.
It is torture to listen to his French accent. It is worse than a Chinese speaking English.
do you know how to speak a secondary language fluently?
guy makes effort to speak in your language and you criticise his accent. the american entitlement!