Why Economist Thomas Piketty Has Scared the Pants Off the American Right

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/why-economist-thomas-piketty-has-scared-pants-american-right



Thomas Piketty is no radical. His 700-page book Capital in the 21st Century is certainly not some kind of screed filled with calls for class warfare. In fact, the wonky and mild-mannered French economist opens his tome with a description of his typical Gen X abhorrence of what he calls the “lazy rhetoric of anticapitalism." He is in no way, shape, or form a Marxist. As fellow-economist James K. Galbraith has underscored in his review of the book, Piketty "explicitly (and rather caustically) rejects the Marxist view" of economics.

But he does do something that gives right-wingers in America the willies. He writes calmly and reasonably about economic inequality, and concludes, to the alarm of conservatives, that there is no magical force that drives capitalist societies toward shared prosperity. Quite the opposite. He warns that if we don't do something about it, we may end up with a society that is more top-heavy than anything that has come before — something even worse than the Gilded Age.

For this, in America, you get branded a crazed Communist by the right. In this past weekend's New York Times, Ross Douthat sounds the alarm in an op-ed ominously tited " Marx Rises Again." The columnist hints that he and his fellow pundits have only pretended to read the book but nevertheless feel comfortable making statements like "Yes, that’s right: Karl Marx is back from the dead" about Piketty. The National Review's James Pethokoukis joins in the games with a silly article called " The New Marxism" in which he repeats the nonsense that Piketty is some sort of Marxist apologist.

For Douthat and his tribe, the proposition that unfettered capitalism marches toward gross inequality is not a conclusion based on carefully collected data, strenuous research and a sweeping view of history. It has to be a Communist plot.

[malaise]

1. The American right has never been able to handle facts

Go Pikkety - pick them to pieces.

[xchrom]

2. ...

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

35. Nor does the American right have a clue about Marxism

Guess what? There are plenty of non-Marxists who aren't wild about unbridled capitalism. To give just one example, the Pope. And his predecessor. And his predecessor -- who lived under a communist regime for much of his life. In his encyclical Centesimus Annus , issued on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, and dealing in large part with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, John Paul II wrote

...can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.

[malaise]

41. I have long believed that corporate America

is the only sphere that has studied Marx - and indeed Lenin's Imperialism.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

105. Oh, there are plenty of other people who have studied Marx -- and Lenin

One group which has not, however, consists of the vast majority of American conservatives.

[hootinholler]

59. Unfortunately the leaders have enough money that they don't have to handle facts

The rest of the RW has too few synapses to realize that facts are not opinions.

[TeamPooka]

66. they can pay people to handle facts for them.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

69. This

^^^^^^^^

[Warpy]

104. Mostly, they can't handle the fact that they've been suckered

While the far right was dangling nuisance antiabortion laws in front of their stupid faces, the 0.1% was given carte blanche to strip mine the economy. Now we are all varying descriptions of poor and it's hard to ignore that particular fact any longer.

I'm not being kind about it, either. I let them know they've been played for chumps for four decades and it's worked and what the hell are they going to do about it?

A wisp of steam curls out of one ear while they try frantically to reboot so they can live in the bubble a little longer. More and more, the reboot is failing.

[Sherman A1]

3. at some point

the current situation is no longer sustainable. If the system does not through a few bones to those in the lower tiers to not only make their life a bit easier, but also to sustain the system itself (as they are the majority of consumers) then the whole thing will spiral downward.

It is in the best self interest of those at the top to let loose with a few $'s.

[quaker bill]

6. The system throws sufficient bones at the workers

to prevent open rebellion and little more. More than this would be termed inefficient.

[happyslug]

98. And Communism raised so much fear, massive armies were raised

Such armies required the draft to provide the men needed for them, and for the draft to work the people being drafted MUST feel they would be fighting for a just cause. Thus Capitalists had to make a better place for such soldiers, for fear that they would turn their weapons against the Capitalists.

Notice, the issue for such draftees was fair treatment, they would accept being underpaid while in the Service, but would NOT accept the continuation of the poor getting poorer and the richer getting richer which had been the norm in the 1800s.

In the US, we have had more use of the Military to put down labor then any other country, Britain is #2. The reason for this is simple, except for brief time period, both countries employed mercenary armies (often called "Volunteers" or "Regulars&quot as opposed the the Universal Service Armies of the European Continent. With Universal Military Service, the people and the army become one and the same, and as such the Army becomes something useless to put down labor or popular unrest. The most recent example of this is Egypt. The Egyptian Army basically refused to shoot Egyptians who wanted Mubarak out. Once the Egyptian Police could not contain the revolt, Mubarak was out for the Army could NOT be relied on to put down the revolt.

Now, with the overthrow of Morsi, was different from the overthrow of Mubarak. Yes, you had a protest that lead to the overthrow, but it was clearly one produced by the Army leadership who wanted to regain control of the Government. Once the coup took place, the Army leadership re-instituted the Police and used the Police to put down any resistance, along with elite formations from within the Army. Army troops were sent around as a show of force, but NOT used to put down the protests against the Coup (Instead the Police and elite forces did that job).

The reason the protests continued so long, was the Generals could NOT rely on their troops to put down the protesters, instead to resorted to the Police which had been suppressing revolts since the time of Nasser. The present government of Egypt is unstable for it has no support among the people or the enlisted ranks of the Army.

When the Soviet Union was dissolving and the members of the Warsaw Pact overthrew their Communists Governments, all were peaceful for the Army of each country was "Draftee" and as such reflected the will of the people. i.e. if the people were for the revolt, so were they. The only exception to the peaceful revolts was in Romania. In Romania the Communist leadership tried to use its Police Force to stay in power, sending it out to suppress the revolt of the people of Romania. At that point the Army intervened, rejecting the order of the Government to support the Police, instead supported the People, for that is what the enlisted ranks wanted to do, and you really can NOT send in a modern army to do something it does NOT want to do.

In the US and to a lesser extent Britain, the desire for an army loyal to its paymasters, not the people was what was wanted and starting in the late 1960s you see that desire come again as you started to have problems with the US Army in Vietnam, as the people went from supporting the war in Vietnam to opposing the war (this happened in the summer of 1968, before that time period, polls has always shown the American People supporting the war in Vietnam, it is only in 1968 that polls starts to go the other way, and with the move in the polls, the effectiveness of the US Army in Vietnam went down hill).

The US Army in Vietnam was a draftee Army and as such tended to be one with the people of the US. After Vietnam, the US went to a "Volunteer" army, an army that gets its recruits by paying them (in other words a mercenary army, but no one likes that name, so it is called a "Volunteer" Army). A mercenary army is loyal to is paymaster, and thus even as most Americans opposed the War in Iraq, the US Army went and fought.

Please note the switch from a Draftee Army to a Mercenary Army is the same time when post WWII movement to fairer share of the income of the US, ended and the US resumed its pre-depression norm of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Yes, the opposition to the Vietnam war was one of the reason for ending the draft, but the people who authored the change had been for that change since WWII, on the grounds they wanted an army capable of suppressing domestic unrest, which a mercenary army does quite well.

Thus, while the post WWII era saw "bones" being thrown to the 99% to keep them from revolting, the post 1972 saw those "bones" being withdrawn and a build up of an army that can be used to suppress internal revolts. Such an army can also be used in overseas actions opposed by the American People, as it has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Army has been in Afghanistan longer then it was in Vietnam. The US Army is NOT going through the deterioration in fighting ability it went through between 1968 and 1972. The reason is the deterioration in fighting ability between 1968 and 1972 reflected opposition to the war by the American people, for the American People and its Army were one and the same (in mind and to a lesser degree body). In Afghanistan and Iraq the US Army is more concerned about its paymasters then the people of the US, and as such does what its paymaster wants.

Thus the shift from a Universal Service Army (more commonly called a Draftee Army) reflects fears by the ruling elite that such an Army will do what the American People wants done, not what they want done. The ruling elite wanted to stay in Vietnam passed 1972, but the Army enlisted ranks prevented that by just not enlisting and those drafted going through the motions instead of during what was needed. The ruling elite blamed everyone but that they were fighting an unpopular war. Worse I lived in that time period and they were discussions about what would happen in five to ten years if things were bad. they were looking for riots everywhere. Thus in many ways the move to a mercenary army was driven by the large protests of the Civil Rights movement and later the peace movement NOT the Vietnam war itself.

Just a comment that the present make up of the US Military is ideal for use to suppress any revolt by anyone the ruling elite does not want to protest. That was NOT true of the US Army of the 1960s and that is part of policy not accident.

[rhett o rick]

13. That would be the smart thing to do, but unreg-capitalism doesnt have a mechanism for that.

In unreg-capitalism the goal is having the greatest wealth. So who is going to step forward and "let loose" with their wealth?

Adam Smith thought that enlighten-self interest would drive individuals to build or create wealth. And I dont think he was wrong. But he was relying on these capitalists being "enlightened", and that is not practical in the capitalistic system. Those that are "enlightened" are soon buried by those that let greed lead the way. It is so much easier to steal wealth than create it.

Bad Analogy Time: Unreg-capitalism is like have no speed limits on our roads. Those with the biggest cars would bowl over everyone else.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Unsustainable? Indeed. Hence increased surveillance

Why do you suppose surveillance has increased? It isn't to protect us from terrorists. It's to squelch any incipient efforts to organize opposition to the increasing rift between the rich and the poor.

Franklin Roosevelt tried to institute an income ceiling of $25,000. He lost, but the compromise was a 90-plus percent top tax rate that persisted through the Eisenhower era and accompanied an American economic boom and the emergence of a robust middle class.

That's nearly all gone now.

[Sherman A1]

47. Agreed

The question then becomes, when will it be actually less of an expense just to spring loose with a few bucks and ease the conditions requiring the surveillance?

[Eleanors38]

55. George II dropped some subtle-as-an-anvil clues...

The temporary repeal (circa Katrina) of the Posse Commitatus Act, and advancing the "Unitary Presidency" theory of governance. Both these actions point clearly toward the same goal: At the president's discretion, Constitutional protections and limited federal governance are both suspended with a molothic police/military force to effect that suspension. Curiously, even the feckless Teaparty movement would probably reject this goal.

Nothing is clearer as to the aims of the corporate state. They are in charge, and there is no meaningful opposition.

What remains is us and our perceptions.

[nikto]

90. Looks like America's middle class voted itself right out of existence

Via love affairs with Reagan/deficits/war$/illusory and lopsided tax cut$.

30 years of RW hatetalk media and 20+ years of Fox tv propaganda greased the wheels,
and got more people hating their neighbors.

Clinton helped by swinging to the right and supporting: NAFTA in 1994; 1996 Telecommunications Act;
Eliminating Glass-Steagall in 1999.
And these helped make him popular at the time as a fair-and-balanced "Centrist".

Then, The Miracle Of 9-11 played a huge role,
Karl Rove and stolen 2000/2004 elections, a few more war$ and, voila----
HERE WE ARE!!

[Jeff Murdoch]

26. The Frog and the Scorpion would seem to fit here. nt

[demigoddess]

88. throwing bones to the people

did not keep the heads on the French Aristocracy. They threw money at the Army in foreign wars. They threw the food to the army and with the people going hungry, never getting a franc ahead. They ended up being removed from their positions as ruling rich people.

[bemildred]

4. Name calling is all they have, so they resort to it right away. nt

[dotymed]

5. "Thats Communism" is always the R.W.

response to any argument against their immoral (it used to be illegal as well) theft of money from those least able to afford it.
SICKENING BASTARDS.
Sadly, almost ALL of the top 10% agree...

[bvar22]

56. The insane part of that is...

Many of those screaming "Communism" and voting for the American Billionaires are some of the dirt poorest, hard working, people I have ever known.

[ErikJ]

65. Even more insane is their policies breed communists/ revolution

When all the wealth is concentrated at the top revolution begins to brew at the bottom.

[Victor_c3]

7. Has anyone read the book?

After reading the article I'm interested in buying it for my Kindle, but at $20 I'm a little leery.

Is the book easy to read or is it a boring dry book that you kind of have to slug your way to finish like a text book??

[rurallib]

8. Bill Moyers, interviewing Paul Krugman, said it was something most could read

said it really grabbed him:
Here is the interview:

http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-the-1-dont-want-you-to-know-2/

[seabeckind]

9. Library?

I've heard rumors that there are a few the ignorati haven't sold.

[malaise]

10. My copy should arrive this week

Can't wait

[mikeysnot]

14. Library?

Chicago libraries have two stinkin copies for the whole city. I am number 59!

[mulsh]

34. I just finished the introduction and moving to the body of the work.

Last edited Tue Apr 22, 2014, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

The introduction is a very informative brief over view of 300 years of economic thought and theories. It's striking for its wit as much as for the massive amount of information painlessly relayed. If the introduction is any indication the rest of the book will not only be informative but a joy to read. Since I picked this up a couple of days ago I reach for this rather than the novels and comic books I"m currently reading. Refreshing from a subject that is normally pretty dry.

edited to correct pre-coffee grammar and spelling.

[Victor_c3]

37. Thanks

Exactly what I wanted to hear. After I'm done writing this, I'm going to go buy a copy right a away.

[daleo]

97. I bought it last week

I read the first part and plan to continue with it. It is readable and interesting to boot.

[Orrex]

11. What is Piketty's stance on fluoridation?

Fluoridation of water?

[Thor_MN]

27. What? How does that possibly connect to economics?

Probably this will come off as snarky, but I just don't get the segue.

[Orrex]

36. It has to do with the the implication that he's a communist.

[Thor_MN]

87. I get it, after the precious bodily fluid comment

In my defense, I can only plead lack of caffeine.

[tclambert]

39. It has to do with your hard-core commie plot to introduce impurities into our precious bodily fluids

[Gidney N Cloyd]

49. Ever seen Piketty drink a glass of water?

[DearAbby]

75. No, but have you seen this?

Hitler gets Rick Rolled -

[Gidney N Cloyd]

77. Hmm...

[The Wizard]

12. Unfettered capitalism

as in what took place prior to the Great Depression (AKA Chaos), devoured itself. Marx discussed this in Das Kapital and it proved to be right. The concentration of resources at the top creates an inequality that foments civil unrest. Anyone recall those famous words "let them eat cake?" What followed was guillotines and head baskets. Blood stained streets is not a reasonable solution.
To date, not one of the banksters who crashed the economy in 08 has been held responsible, but rather were given bonuses after being bailed out by the American tax payers.
Bribing elected officials doesn't cost, it pays.
Now where were those blindfolds and cigarettes?

[rhett o rick]

15. So when will they do it again? The bankster's extortion worked. The biggist heist in

history. They will do it again and again, because it's unfettered-capitalism.

[n2doc]

23. They are still doing it

LIBOR rigging, mortgage scams and all the rest, it is all there, simmering. Occasionally someone gets their hand slapped with a fine.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-27/billions-in-fines-but-no-jail-time-for-bank-of-america

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0421/business/central-bank-imposes-575k-fines-266065.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/danske-bank-fine-idUSWEB00LPA20140416

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-13/jpmorgan-to-hsbc-face-eu-rate-rigging-fines-from-almunia.html

[truedelphi]

83. And partly the bankers are getting away with it because of the

Loyalists who are always saying, "There was absolutely nothing Obama could have done, as the mean nasty awful Republicans forced him to let the Geithenr/Bernanke duo give Main Street's wealth away to the capitalist Bankers at the top."

Kabuki theater apparently works very well.

[rhett o rick]

86. I am thinking that Pres Obama might have been "encouraged" to hire Geithner and Bernanke.

The oligarch overlords may have explain it to him that if he tried anything cute, there might be another bank "crisis".

[truedelphi]

92. Were you able to type out your reply with

A straight face?

We are continually told that we have to vote and that we have to get out the vote, but then on the very things that matter, we re told that the elected Dems cannot lift a finger, as that is just the way things are. "Why if he had even thought of trying to fight the way things are, then things would have been worse."

And Blah Blah Blah.

Of course, all great leaders were told they couldn't try and change things or else they would find themselves making everthing worse. This includes FDR, JFK and Martin Luther King Jr.

King was so discouraged by fellow ministers that he gave up for a while. But then he realized what he needed to do was to start with getting younger people and students motivated to join him,and the result was historic.

I can't say that Obama has even tried.

Meanwhile, people are no longer interested in voting. The electorate stayed home by some eight percent in 2012, when compared to 2008. And it will be even worse in 2016.

[rhett o rick]

108. Well I think it's easiest to see in the area of intelligence.

It shouldnt be hard to imagine that during the Bush admin, if not before, the intelligence agencies gained tremendous power. Seemingly only limited by budget which is staggering. Common sense would help us believe that anyone in charge of these agencies would push for ever tool they can get to use to do their job. And if conservatives were in charge, as they were and are, they will push the power to well beyond what should be happening in a democracy. It's ignorantly naive to think that powerful people will self limit their use of power. We dont know how much power the NSA/CIA/FBI have, but I can easily imagine that it could be tremendous. Tremendous to the point of limiting Pres Obama's ability to change it, if he wanted to.

I can easily see them explaining to him the dangers of him messing with the system as currently set up.

[HooptieWagon]

48. A friend of mine had some interesting comments.

He is a conservative ( who thinks the GOP has gone bat-shit crazy over the cliff) and a County Judge. Previously, he was a professor at a local college and a State University, teaching Economics and Finance (he holds PhDs in both). He believes the economic crash was intentional (duh), that the Wall St reform bill is utterly toothless, and that Wall St is gearing up to do it again (absolutely nothing in place to stop them).

[Starry Messenger]

16. I'm reccing, though articles like this always give me pause.

There isn't really anything weird or special about Communism that should make people on the left run away from it.

If you're trying to solve income inequality, you're going to be red-baited, no matter what you call yourself. The right doesn't care or make distinctions.

[mrdmk]

80. There has never been a true Marxist/Communism country, they are/were a tyrannical dictatorship

Just the same there were never been a true 100% Capitalistic country.

Having a mixture of both Capitalistic and Socialistic monetary base is what is needed for our modern societies. Finding that mix that works best for all citizens is the real problem/solution!

[Starry Messenger]

93. I'm not a liberal, so we'll have to disagree.

No denying there will be a lot of transitions in this country from the tyrannical ravages of Capital though. I don't know how anyone can look at the suffering in this country and think there was anything worth keeping from the 1%, but that's me.

[cantbeserious]

17. No Surprise - The Behavior Is Predictable

eom

[hfojvt]

18. are they really scared?

That a majority of Americans will read a 700 page book about economics?

Might be more trouble if he provides data for 1976 and somebody updates these pie charts and widely distributes them
http://www.koch2congress.com/5.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. The majority of Americans didn't read Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek

But these philosophies came to dominate first the economics departments, and then the business schools, and then the law schools, and then policy people and government, and journalists, and thereby filtered down into our everyday lives and understandings. They were ideological nonsense a mere 50 years ago - now they are the dominant policy philosophies shaping our everyday lives and interactions, whether we've read them or not.

That's what the right is concerned about. The way the current social formation attained power can be reversed. But it has to come from somewhere. They've effectively cancelled out critique from the humanities, which are now busy congratulating themselves for being "post-critical" and engaging in "civic entrepreneurship," where they're not in utter collapse. They've thoroughly colonized economics, business, law, and policy education, where the most brutal capitalist exploitation has taken on the air of a religious dogma. Science is generally given a pass, so long as it contributes to R&D and doesn't get in the way of wealth accumulation, a condition which our scientists - for all their laughable celebration of a supposedly rebellious "geek culture" - have largely and cravenly complied with.

So, what is the right scared of? It is scared of any dent being made in the dogma. That's not going to come out of the humanities, which is a little sandlot where people are allowed to play with "dissent" in all its varieties, it being thoroughly ineffective. It's not going to come out of the sciences, which are busy enough staving off the lunacy of evangelicals and generally too proud of themselves to notice that they exist in a political economy that destroys humans wholesale.

It's going to come out of economics itself. It's going to come out of an economics that destroys the capitalist economics from the inside, by showing how it doesn't even work according to its own terms. For all Piketty's demurrals, moreover, this was exactly Marx's project.

[hfojvt]

40. but those philosophies bought their way in

they had incredible money power to promote them.

Plus "Capitalism and Freedom" did sell 400,000 copies between 1962 and 1980. And "Free to choose" was 5 weeks on the best seller list and it was a TV show.

Friedman and Hayek certainly did not dominate where I went to graduate school in 1988.

Not sure it dominated in the future either. When I contacted some of my fellow graduate students about ten years ago, the lone conservative was then complaining about Bush.

[jwirr]

50. I don't think it is necessary for all Americans to read the book but it is essential that those who

want to influence the country do read it and understand it.

[cascadiance]

101. Check the top two selling books here at Powell's in Portland!

Look at the right column on this page.

http://www.powells.com/

Elizabeth Warren's new book and Mr. Piketty's book!

Went to the store next door over lunch hour and they were already sold out today of copies. The lady in information said others have been asking for it today too. It has just been released by the way.

[hfojvt]

106. and it's $25 in hardcover

making my point. Masses of people are not gonna drop $25 on a book. Given the size of it, it won't come out in mass-market paperback, instead it will be a more expensive "quality" paperback.

Ironically enough, the people spending $25 on that or $28 on Warren's book are probably fairly well to do, probably above the median income, likely in the top 25%.

At least I find it ironic when somebody in the 90th percentile of income looks up at the top 1% and shakes their finger saying "inequality is bad" without noticing all the people below them.

There were 65.9 million Obama voters in the last election. If the richest 5% of them/us all buy a book in hardcover it will probably be a record-setting best seller, but it will not change a whole bunch of minds.

[kelliekat44]

19. They will listen once Obama is out of office. nt

[kelliekat44]

20. The best demo of this is to try to stan a pyramid upside down. Maybe that can get through to the

brain dead?

[fasttense]

21. Why are economist so enamored with capitalism?

"He warns that if we don't do something about it, we may end up with a society that is more top-heavy than anything that has come before — something even worse than the Gilded Age." Or worse than feudalism?

"Piketty's contribution is to painstakingly comb over the available data and illuminate trends that would leave no reasonable person in doubt of the fact that capitalism's inherent dynamics create inequality, and that only our express intervention, in the form of things like a global wealth tax, investment in skills and training, and the diffusion of knowledge can lead us to a different outcome."

So, capitalism leads to huge inequalities, it's in the inherit nature of capitalism. We must pass laws to "redistribute" the inequality created by capitalism.

Soooooooo, if capitalism is so flawed, why NOT develop a better economic system? Why stick with an economic system that must constantly be regulated to prevent abuse?

[kristopher]

38. Marx was an economist.

I say that to point out that when you lump all economists together as you did, it's a bit of an injustice. That said, the reason capitalism is accepted by default might be traceable to two areas - the outcome of The Cold War, and the large body of research that confirms the effectiveness of capitalism as a means of raising living standards out of third world level poverty.

I don't think Piketty's findings come as a surprise to most people who are versed in policy or economics; the value of it (as I'm reading the discussions, I haven't read the book) isn't that it is revelatory but that it is a tight and well documented confirmation of what we believe to be true - the "free market" approach to capitalism is filled with substantial pitfalls that can be avoided.

You say "why NOT develop a better economic system?"

Do you have any suggestions?

My personal opinion is that mandatory voting aiming for 100% participation by adults is the single greatest step we could realistically take to fix the system; since a strong democracy along with an educated and politically involved populace are probably the areas we should look to for solutions.

[fasttense]

51. Yes, Marx was an economist. I should not have lumped all economist into one group.

That said, No, there is no large body of research that confirms the effectiveness of capitalism as a means of raising living standards out of third world level poverty. There is 3rd world level poverty today in many, many capitalist nations. Take India for example and Calcutta for specific. They have been practicing capitalism even before they took their freedom back from England yet poverty is horrendous there. You can't turn around without seeing young children working the streets and starving people selling anything they have. Capitalism did NOT bring prosperity to them.

What many assume is the propriety of capitalism is merely the natural outcome of eliminating feudalism and most of slavery. It is the result of the riches of North America taken from the American Indians. The US and Canada have been lucky in that they killed off most of the indigenous population of an entire Continent and then took the natural wealth of that land for themselves. Of course you will see an improvement in prosperity when you take from someone else and don't count those people's losses as important. The US also had the military intelligence to take from South America, kept dictators in charge so the wealth of those nations continued to flow to the US and NOT the citizens of the country. Yes, the US has seen the good of capitalism at the cost of the bad of capitalism being exported to others who are rarely counted as important.

There is another way besides capitalism and it really is very simple. Make the workplace democratic. Take the means of production out of the absentee corporate owners and put it into the hands of the workers. Our democracy in the US is a sham. A fictitious idea we tell ourselves but in practice is nothing more than just another group of excessively wealthy people running the show. More useless voting is NOT going to make a difference unless the voting is taking place in the workplace. Here's a link: http://www.democracyatwork.info/

[kristopher]

54. Ok

That is a mishmash of confused concepts but if it works for you, that's fine.

[fasttense]

107. It's hard to explain centuries of destruction caused by capitalism

in just a few paragraphs. Capitalism has done so much damage to most of the world. And yet MOST economist still think it is the end all and be all of economic/political systems. It is NOT. Capitalism is the root cause of poverty, global warming and the destruction of democracy. It's all tied together in one greedy little knot. Trying to pull some of the threads out can make it appear disorganized.

[Dawgs]

58. How do you think we could eventually get "an educated and politically involved populace"?

Are you suggesting that mandatory voting would be enough to get people more informed?

Not being contradictory here, just interested in your opinion.

[kristopher]

82. It's a good first step.

We can start with the circumstantial evidence of Republicans intentionally suppressing the vote - they don't do that because it helps their agenda you know.

Or I could say that I just believe in democracy and have faith that a system reflecting the actual values of all the people would tend to produce more informed voters and that more of them would be an active part of the process outside the ballot box.

Do you have a better plan?

Here is some evidence that can cut both ways...
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf

[happyslug]

100. Mandatory Voting? Done only in countries where they go through the motions of voting

Remember, outside of the US, write in votes are rare (and in most countries illegal). You go to the voting both and you pick one of the candidates on the ballot. If you live in Haiti, for example, you can vote for any one on the ballot, but the most popular party can NOT get on the ballot. Thus the only way to show your vote is to boycott the election, even if that means going to the voting booth and putting in a blank ballot (and in many countries that option is not a good one, for voting officials then fill in the blank ballots).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate#Other_countries

I remember the elections of South Vietnam. Good valid elections, but it was like a African American voting district getting the choice of two Republicans. Boycotting was not legal, blank votes just were not counted, so the people "Voted" for one of the people on the ballot and then supplied the Viet Cong with Food.

Sorry, mandatory voting is generally a sign that a country wants to avoid its Election as being called a Joke, but the winner only getting

In Halti, in 2010 Presidential elections the winner received 716,986 votes or over 67% of votes counted. In 2000 Jean-Bertrand Aristide had received 2,632,534 votes. Where did almost 2 million voters go between 2000 and 2010? The answer is they had no one on the ballot to vote for. The party they would vote for was forbidden to be on the ballot.

Sorry Mandatory voting is a way to force people to vote for people they oppose. That is why it is popular in several countries that are dictatorships.

[kristopher]

103. That has nothing to say about what might be done here

If you don't like the idea, that's fine; however your argument is extremely thin and it suffers from the failure to consider that the premier example of a voting pattern supporting totally dysfunctional government is right here today. That's the problem we need to address and your examples have nothing at all to say about the potential for success if we were to craft a policy intended to ensure fair elections with as near universal as possible voter participation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024856184
Study: American public has ‘virtually no influence’ over politics in face of wealthy interest groups

[happyslug]

99. Marx was a Historian, his strength was connecting Economics with History

His books are read to this day by the CIA, for he was the first to really connect revolutions with economics. Marx pointed out as things go bad, you do NOT have a revolution, it is when the economy has hit bottom and is starting to recover that you have a revolution.

Marx pointed out the Reformation was more the result of economic and political power coming under the control of the then emerging "Middle Class" (what we would call the "Upper Middle Class" that part of the population earning more then what 90% of the people do, but still below the top 3% who are the true rich) and away from the old landed aristocracy. When the peasants of the Reformation tried to take the Reformation to the next level, that is to provide a greater share of the wealth of society to them, Luther ordered his supporters to put them down.

More on the German Peasant war of 1525:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants'_War

What was pushing the Reformation was also pushing the peasants into open revolt, economic hardship tied in with the decline in weather do to what is now called the "Little Ice Age" a concept Marx did not know about and thus did not consider. On the other hand Marx did look at the problems of the peasants of the 1500s and used it to show when a revolution would occur (i.e. not as things go bad, but as things turn around).

In many ways that was Marx's strength. His concepts of economics, is rejected by other economics. I suspect the main reason is Marx takes Adam Smith policy (Marx considered himself a follow of Smith) to they logical end, and end up in a society where the rich have everything and the poor nothing, and before that occurs you will have a revolution for that is what has happened in the past.

Marx goes into the concept of "Stolen Labor" then defends it as what happens in any society, for people exchange their labor for other things. The classic "Stolen Labor" concept is when a workers builds something for his employer. What ever was made becomes the "Capital" of the employer. The workers get no further value from it, but the employer does even if the employer add nothing to the item. Over time more and more capital is the result of such "Stolen Labor". The "Stolen Labor" may have been used centuries before, but in Marx's term it is still "Stolen Labor" for the original worker who did the work to make the capital is NOT getting any profit from that labor, someone else is.

My opinion on this concept of "Stolen Labor" was that Marx was responding to those capitalists saying their investments was the key to their wealth, not the labor used to make those investments. Marx was setting up a system to justify taking the property of the wealthy on the grounds that wealth was NOT the product of anything they did, but what workers did in the past. It is a call NOT to rely on wealth as a measurement of economic health. Thus Marx both calls Capital "Stolen Wealth" and then justify such "Stolen Wealth" as something any society has to have. i.e. Capital is good and needed even if it is the product of the work of others.

Yes, Marx can be complex. When ask how he would set up a communistic society, he is reported to have said he did not know, but it would take 500 years after any labor revolution before we achieve one.

Remember the thrust of Marxism is turning power over to the bottom 90% of society, and that no ruling group has ever given up political power without a fight. How to get the system to work could only be achieved AFTER the removal from power of those people who oppose such changes. Thus the Revolution was NOT to impose Communism, but to set up a system that would lead to Communism by eliminating the power of Capitalists to prevent such improvements in society.

Thus, Marx is at his best looking at History, when Revolution will occur, and how people get power during such revolutions. In economics, his thrust was to justify a pro labor revolution, not to actually change Capitalist economic thought (Which Marx himself embraced). Marx opposition was to the CONTROL capitalists had over Society and they efforts to undermine Capitalism as an ongoing process. In Marx's view, capitalism had the seeds of its own destruction, and when that occur labor will take over as the ruling elite and take the improvements Capitalism provided and more equitable share them with all the people of society.

Side note: Marx actually has some bad words on the poor, He believed they would stab the Working Class in the back in any fight between labor and capital. Marx said that the poor, could be easily bought by Capital to attack Labor and that was done repeatedly during his life time. Thus Marx said Labor has to support the poor, but not to trust them.

Marx also pointed out a true Revolution occurs not only when things improve, but when the "Petty Bourgeois" roughly those making more the $100,000 today, are pushed into the Working Class as the rich finds out they can no longer cut the wages of the Working Class, and look to such "Petty Bourgeois" as the next place to get additional wealth from. It is these former "Petty Bourgeois" that have lead past revolutions and will do so in the future.

Thus Marx's great strength is as an historian and predictor of when a social revolution will occur. His economics is more aimed to justify a Communist take over of such a revolution then a true economic plan.

Just a comment on Karl Marx and why he is relative today, and that has to do with his study of history and his observations of what is needed to have a social revolution. His economic theories, outside of those areas, have no value today, but in regards to when we will see a social revolutions his writings are accurate.

[kristopher]

102. Not really relevant to the discussion

I'd consider him to be primarily a cultural anthropologist, but that doesn't alter the fact that he was an economist.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. I think it's highly ironic when someone runs away from Marx.......

while basically saying the same thing that Marx said about the system. The only thing different would probably be the conclusions that Marx draws about the RESULTS of capitalism's end stages. Namely, revolution by the working class.

[Ed Suspicious]

42. I wonder if he does that because Marx is so demonized by the cult of A. Smith in the academic econ

universe that he would have trouble being taken seriously by his peers and would struggle for any favorable or even fair peer review. It does seem very odd to me as well.

[Progressive dog]

45. Obviously he distances himself from Marx

on the things he believes are different. If he thought regulated capitalism was the same as Communism, I would bet he'd say so.
Marxism was tried and spectacularly failed.

[abelenkpe]

25. Sad

Sad that the author is branded a Marxist while vilifying anti capitalists. Sad that pundits on the right get to loudly protest a book they admit to not even having read. If leaders around the world continue to do nothing to address growing inequality they effectively do more harm to capitalism than honor as more become disillusioned and seek an alternative.

[WillyT]

28. K & R !!!

[Trust Buster]

29. The irony is that the majority of these wing nut flame throwers grew up....

......in a middle class environment that implemented the same policies that this author describes. FDR New Deal is essentially what this guy stands for and the wing nuts owe their place in society to it. What irony.

[randys1]

31. Exactly

if the rank and file righty were to get the libertarian world they claim they want, they would be on their knees within 6 months begging us to fix it...

stupid people we have in this country, VERY stupid people

[randys1]

30. When the dolts wake up to our reality things might change

but the reality is Climate change will rapidly alter our lives very soon, we wont do what we are suppose to do of course, and within 20 years humankind will do nothing else but try and react to the changes, all of them bad

we are too stupid to survive it seems, time for a new species to take over

[brett_jv]

71. Climate change ... or peak oil (already here) ... one or the other ... or a bit of each ...

In either case the world WILL be in utter chaos in 20 years from the effects of one or the other ... fortunately, that's when I'm at the age I wasn't planning on living too much past anyways, so ...

[randys1]

78. You know what angers me the most

I understand idiot religious morons who think we are suppose to destroy the earth anyway cuz Jesus says so, or you know use it till it is dust cuz they are gonna rapture, i hate that they exist due to the harm they cause but i understand that thinking as it is similar to the way my 8 yr old grandson thinks

The ones that drive me crazy are the ones who oppose climate change simply because Al Gore made the movie, or oppose ACA simply because Obama offered it while it was actually created by the most right-wing think tank on earth.

These people are guilty of murder in my book, whether it is by supporting the turning down of medicaid in FL and elsewhere thus directly resulting in death or the denial of climate change also resulting directly in death.

They are still pissed we liberals were the cool kids, got laid more often than they did (they were lucky to ever get laid) and now they see us as the cool adults, the in crowd and the educated crowd and it makes them furious.

Plus, they are just downright racist morons.

[xfundy]

33. I could have done without that image in my head

--right wingnuts with no pants. ICKKK!

[raindaddy]

43. The title of this piece is deceptive

When it comes to economic policies that favor the ultra rich in this country does anyone know what constitutes the "American Right" anymore?

We're fooling ourselves if we believe we've become a country where the income divide between the 1% and the rest of us is "greater than any society in any era anywhere in the world" solely because of America's right...

[TBF]

46. Not solely because of the right -

but I'd like you to show me anything as destructive to the workers of this country as Reagan's trickle-down nonsense.

And I am someone who has no qualms pointing out my disgust with the Wilson administration for example (and his AG Palmer) and I am not a fan of current AG Holder. Both of the AGs I've noted here have not been friends to socialists - exactly the opposite actually.

Still, not as destructive as Reagan.

[raindaddy]

52. A baseball comes crashing through your window...

You look outside and it's the kids next door. Who's to blame, the kid who threw the ball or the kid who hit it?
These kinds of arguments go nowhere, they only serve to justify our adherence to a meme that no longer serves us.

In all due respect, if you think, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, trade policies like NAFTA and TTP , lightly regulated, too big to fail banks, two tier justice system, etc hasn't adversely affected the workers of this country I have one pair of comfortable walking shoes to sell you.

[TBF]

53. I didn't say they hadn't

But those cuts to the capital gains taxes (which by far help the wealthy) were started by Reagan.

I'm opposed to the TPP as well.

[TBF]

44. And rightly so - he tells it like it is. K&R nt

[PasadenaTrudy]

57. Sold out on Amazon currently

I got the Kindle edition, but it makes me happy to read that the hardcover has sold out.

[IkeRepublican]

60. All the RW has to do is scream marxist...

...and the mainstream media will be right there directly to wrap their lips around the member of whoever said it.

[raindaddy]

62. True that!!!

And a "French" Marxist at that.....

[Tsiyu]

61. Douthat and his tribe

write the way cockroaches would write if they could be columnists.

'Don't shine the light! Diversion! Diversion! Scramble the Marx Jets!"

Hilarious and predictable.....

[adirondacker]

63. Freedom Fries will be on the menu soon, catered by the MSM and Wall Street. nt

[vlakitti]

64. I don't think Mr. Piketty is a flash in the pan

nor that his book is going way anytime soon.

And when you point out the speed by which the wealth of the 1% is increasing several times faster today than the overall growth rate of the economy, while the income and wealth of the middle class is stagnant and that of the working class is actually falling in a rising economy, I'd say you were pretty damned radical, no matter what your strategic and tactical language is.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

67. To many people, shrinking resources, global collapse.

[Ed Suspicious]

70. Malthus was wrong. So are you.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

79. Well that was quick, nothing to worry about, whee

No die offs coming, ever increasing resources, food chain will be perfect, acid levels in ocean returning to normal, thanks for letting me know everything will be OK.

[indepat]

68. Is not the entire right-wing screed, ideology, mantra about a government of, by, and for the

plutocrats? Is not about every thing government does either to promote the general welfare or the welfare of the plutocrats? Is every Republican not either a plutocrat, a wanna-be plutocrat, or bat-shit crazy, i.e., fu*kin' stupid?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

72. The PROBLEM is the Dems are busy trying to convince the rich that an oligarchy is a "bad" thing...

And they act like they need the permission of the rich before they make a move.

[Paladin]

73. Douthat is a moron, almost as stupid as Maureen Dowd. (nt)

[eridani]

74. It's no wonder that Millenials prefer socialism to capitalism by a slight margin

They've never lived in a world where the right has never labelled any public good as socialism. They like public goods, and if that's "socialism," then they want it.

[Gothmog]

76. The current income inequality is not sustainable

Trickle down economics have been a failure and income inequality has increased due to these failed policies.

[AngryAmish]

84. Please remember that this guy is incapable of predicting the future.

Nobody can.

This guys policy solutions may work. They may not work. But he, nor anyone else can oredict if they will.

The field of economics is wishful thinking built upon supposition. Then again it is like everything us humans do.

[WillyT]

91. Well Then... Let's Consider The Past... Because We KNOW That THAT Worked...

[WillyT]

95. That's An Accusation... Which Does Not Enhance Discussion... And Leaves Nobody Enlightened...

Care to explain, rather than insult ???

[maindawg]

85. I live right dab smack in the middle

of the real world. I work in it, I play on it. I exist within shouting distance to alot of other people who live in the real world with me. I also know like dozens of other people who have to live here to. So we all know what its like. Even though some of the people I know are probably righties, not all are assholes, and they all know what its like out here in the hinterland. Let me tell you, it aint easy. Every one is getting tired of feeling the pinch. I think they might have figured out that it was wall street who tanked our economy, and I know they are fatigued by it, like you and me. I know that they know fox is lying, I never could understand the intentional disconnect that must occur in order to ignor the fact that you are being bullshited.
What I am saying is that Mr Picketty is simply saying what is true. At some level, even the righties have to respect that.

[Curmudgeoness]

89. "A rising tide lifts all boats"

is one of the things that he is very critical of in this book. And we all know that scares the shit out of the right.

[blkmusclmachine]

96. Trckle Down, still in vogue in Washington DC.

It's a scam, of course.