Is Thomas Picketty Right About The Causes of Inequality?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2014
- Economist Michael Hudson discusses the popularity of French economist Thomas Picketty's recent book and says his work fails to link the financialization of the economy to the ascent of the 1%
We've been hearing a lot about Picketty's book, but this guest provides valuable insights into what the book does not include. It seems clear that if Picketty's book had indeed included the types of remedies mentioned by the guest (and which I agree with) then we would have been hearing much less about the book. This video provides useful information to better understand how the world works.
aND SO LONG A TIME AFTER THE BOOK'S ARRIVAL. sO FEW SOURCES FROM WHICH TO GET EVEN THIS QUALITY OF ANALYSIS WHEN FILTERED THROUGH THE msm CORPORATE MEDA., sorry caps, ain't retyping, MSM, of course is actually MajorSpreadersofManure, as its come to be, the Neoliberals takeover as was begun with the Lewis Powell memo's false and pretentious, 'save the free enterprise system,'monstrous LIE to USChamber of Corruption, I mean, Commerce...no, got it right the first time.
Jesus knew what was coming. He knew their game.
yes we want more of Economist Michael Hudson on the news....
Thank you so much!
Love this dude
3:01 Hudson: “The 1% have got rich by holding the 99% in debt.... So you have a polarity....”
Legit criticisms, but you have to give credit to Picketty for bringing more light (both from an economic theory and public debate standpoint) to the inequality issue. His statistics reinforce our understanding of the phenomenon of increasing inequality, and the very fact that his analysis and solutions are moderate allows the debate to progress and shields the facts he brings to the table from being tagged with a pejorative "socialist" label.
But isn't Piketty's explanation of the cause of the inequality in the very title of his book: Capital!
Hudson is a typical heterodox economist who likes to think they have the true answer to all things and that everyone who hits on great points is missing the "true" answer which only they really understand.
It is a sickness they have.
aguaditoo whats your sickness? stupidity.
,.
Thomas Piketty seems to be the correct way to spell the author's name.
The income taxes for the lowest paid of French workers were waived a few years ago and it's just been decided to not only continue the waiver, but to give them additional tax breaks. It's seen as a way to help those who are indeed working, just earning peanuts -- no income tax at all.
Wow!! This man is a genius
As American's wake up and millions are, the unrest will boil over! And I personally think it will be sooner then later!
So true but today this is simply not the case and we the public are being diminished daily!
We have from free people become enslaved to a system that you did not even know happened!
I am open to suggestion's.
Trish House Right. Americans must turn this around it is up to us we have the power we chose to use it but we are not organized.
Our police are well armed and our military well trained in the suppression of urban insurrection.
As long as we allow Banks to issue/create the Publics Currency as an interest bearing debt we will wallow in confusion and vast inequality.The engaged thinking citizenry need to organize to redesign economics starting with Banking.Look up Frederick Soddy and Edward Kelloggs books on money. Watch Richard Werners talks~ Todays Source of Money Creation, Prof Brilliantly Explains
It's so odd to acknowledge that we have a fully corrupted political system, but in the next breath as a solution to propose various policy changes. Um, yes, those or any other reasonable policies would be great, but you've rather missed the problem, which is that the capital determines the policies. It's not enough to think of what a reasonable policy would be, you have to have the leverage to create a new reality. The existing political system cannot be saved. Direct action gets the goods.
This is the point that is eating away at me. Every expert always says "we need to do this, and this, and this." Meanwhile, nothing corrective even comes close to getting enacted or being changed. In fact, things generally seem to change in the opposite direction, in favor of the 1% and the corporations, digging our hole even deeper. The govt. is bought and paid for and seems impossible to change legally at this point in time, (i.e. with our "vote", what a joke.) And debt is the slave master that invisibly whips the 99% of us.
***** The internal processes advertised as ways to "change" the system are of course just traps. They're a part of the system that helps it maintain its stability by superficial adaptation. If you listen carefully that's even actually what they're saying-- that we can preserve our "proud tradition" or whatever while making just the minimal changes necessary for its survival.
It's not actually difficult to really change the system. If it were fundamentally difficult, would it even be necessary to have all those traps and tricks?! They'd just say, "Oh you want to change things? Good luck with that." But they _have_ to have tricky false ways to diffuse radical energy, because they're actually very vulnerable. When anyone ever actually tries to change things by the application of direct force they have to cave immediately.
What changes things is direct action. You just have to do something that changes the actual underlying economic situation. You have to cost someone money. The story starts out "oh there's _no way_ that could change, that's just how things are" but as soon as someone starts hemorrhaging money it instantly becomes "OK fine, what can we change to make you stop."
mdfouru Trying to write a constitutional amendment that can overpower the willfull misinterpretations of the SCOTUS is clearly just wishful thinking. Constitution didn't work? Try more constitution! Revolutions are dangerous so let's leave things the same and hope it's OK even though it's not!
This political system will kill us before we could rearrange it ourselves.
We have to use everything we can.
contrary to michael's argument in the 7th minute, i am wary of untaxing 'factorism' (you seen a non-polluting one yet?), conversely, there's no law that forbid the Sauds for instance, to invest in and loan to permaculture efforts in a truly game changing way (like demanding no payment until after 50 years, they can easily bear that level of extreme maleness - risk - can they?)
You don't close the income gap by discouraging people to be productive and make money by taxing away most of what they make.
Inequality is caused by language and education, giving unequal income.
i have to say i don't get what all the hype is about with this book. governments around the world have set interest rates at close to 0%, and these same governments are dishing out literally trillions of dollars in handouts to mega-corporations, yet it seems like this is just classified under regular old capitalism. maybe if they stopped doing both these things there would be no problem to speak of?
If this system is allowed to continue then
the kids and grand kids are gonna say
what a bunch o cowards this generation had been.
bizarre that 99% are under the thumb of 1%.
a world ruled by psychos.
one% gives debt to 99% so we can buy seed, fertiliser and diesel so we grow crops and provide people food.but we all love to beat them because payback is a bitch
its all game of numbers and i am weak in maths .
The 1% are not the same people from year to year. This guy is an economist?
GunsNpolitics ?
A flat tax would solve it. 100% capital gains and taxing people on money that has already been taxed is not a solution. That just continues polarization and maintains the conversation at a level where nothing gets done. It's not evil to accumulate wealth, and fairness and social equity isn't either.
How high would such a flat tax have to be? I'm all for coming up with creative ways to tax that might prove more effective at raising money to redistribute, but the whole point would be to reduce the relative power of the powerful. Of course it is technically evil to accumulate wealth, since wealth is power and it is certainly evil to exercise power over others. Of course you can use power to all sorts of benevolent ends, but if the result is that you are making decisions that affect the lives of others, you've become their ruler. People should have a say in decisions in proportion to the degree to which they are affected by them.
Bizud I don't know, I'm not an economist, but I've heard 20% kicked around by people who are. The premise suggests fairness to me. The idea that it's one rate for everyone, with no loopholes, seems inherently fair - particularly where may of our top corporations are reported to pay little or no Federal tax. I wonder who is more against it, the companies or their tax attorneys and accounting firms? Friends in business have told me that a lot of what's saved in taxes ends up going to advisers.
It's not fair. 20% of one's income is a significant burden on someone earning 20k a year. Even 90% wouldn't be a significant burden on someone earning over a million a year.
Sure it is. Taxes should be based on income, not buying power. What you are suggesting is what they tried to do in the first place. It's how our system got to be the way it is. If you try and skew things to favor the poor, the rich will always use it to their own benefit. That's how the world works. The end result is that they pay no taxes and get most of the subsides. This way, everyone is treated the same, no one gets handouts, and we don't run the country into the ground on debt. Debt, is the only thing the FED is able to hide behind. Without it, they wouldn't have an argument, and America would be free again - or more free anyway.
MegaGideo
I don't know what a pre-Reagan tax system is. I vaguely remember talking about changes in GAP in an accounting class (in 2006). Somehow I doubt a minor modification, even though significant for politicians and accountants, would be a sea change. Although Clinton did balance the budget and erased the deficit on the backs of the rich. It also started a landslide of manufacturing losses. The 40 years of stability we had, I think had more to do with a strong manufacturing base, technological innovation and an educated labor pool, than accounting rules. Also if I can believe my professors in economics, the pendulum will always swing eventually, and regardless of who is in office, or whether they follow Keynes or Ricardo.
This guy want to lead the world back to serfdom.
No, that's where he's saying it's headed if we do nothing.
mdfouru You'd better read the book before calling people anything.
This guy want to lead the world back to serfdom and I stand by what I said.
In France, under the Socialist Party, 8000 families had to pay 100% of their income in taxes, plus another 14000 paid 75%+. In april 2013, just after tax collections, they went back into a recession. None of the billionaires/millionaires who knew the system were affected, only small entrepreneurs and people starting to succeed. This is also what's going on here in the states. The democrats want to punish the small entrepreneurs because of the amount of political pushback they did since the recession. "Tax the rich" came right after "cap and trade" was let down.
No your Libertarian nonsense is the road back to serfdom.
I don't think so
Curtis B
Read the book first. Then you can comment like a pundit.
Picketty is all publicity but there is no substance. First of all his measurement of inequality is not correct. His conclusions are meaningless.
I can not understand what is the big fuss about this book.