How a 700-page economics book surged to No. 1 on Amazon

[Douglas Carpenter]

"Capital in the Twenty-First Century," at first glance, seems an unlikely candidate to become a best-seller in the U.S. After all, it's 700 pages long, translated from French, and analyzes centuries of data on wealth and economic growth.

But the book, from economist Thomas Piketty, is now No. 1 on Amazon.com's best-seller list, thanks to rave reviews and positive word of mouth. Beyond that, however, the book has something else going for it: "Capital" has hit a nerve with Americans with its message about income inequality.


The main thrust of the book is that, in the jargon of economists, the rate of return on capital has far outstripped the rate of economic growth. The book also portrays the post-World War II period of economic progress across all classes as an anomaly, not the norm.

"When the rate of return of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which which democratic societies are based," Piketty writes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-700-page-economics-book-surged-to-no-1-on-amazon/

[Democracyinkind]

1. The times they are a-changing. It's the first time in my life that I actually feel that way.

I'm not talking about the ringing of revolution or anything fancy like that. But I do feel like we have gotten a hold on the general narrative.

[Lochloosa]

3. I agree. I think it's going to be slow and in some cases painful, but the times are changing.

[rurallib]

6. boy I hope you two are right

I feel like the rich are getting a grip on things like they have never had before.

[Democracyinkind]

9. I don't think that our views are mutually exclusive...

The tighter their grip the more likely that people will notice and act.

[Lochloosa]

11. So do I.....

[yeoman6987]

7. Went to Amazon....still number 1

However, went to New York Times list and nowhere to be found. Kinda weird since it is so popular. On Amazon's best sellar, I am glad it knocked out Heaven is for Real which was number 1 for a year.

[liberalmike27]

17. Not Surprisingly

The Internet is a much more liberal place, than the television, radio, or even Newspaper watchers/readers. To where did we all flee, when the media betrayed us? It's why Internet polls are always so much more liberal. While they damn sure still call the media "liberal," it isn't close--not even MSNBC.

I saw an article the other day and sort of thought I'd love to read that book. But I'm in the middle of four, and my reading has slowed to a trickle--too much entertainment television, movies and such I guess.

[JackRiddler]

2. Need to read it, but also must ask...

Why does this always need to be delivered as though it were news?

That's right, the golden age of capitalism ran from about 1948 to 1973. It ended more than 40 years ago, but the mentality sadly has not died, and people still believe in the magic of this "market." The ideology morphed into an aggressive neoliberal neo-social Darwinism that is represented by Democrats as well as Republicans -- especially when it comes to punishing children (as in, "common core&quot and the poor for the sin of existing.

And that's right, money makes more money than work. Returns on capital outstrip economic growth. But they can't! Thus, a system perpetually in system-generated crisis. This is the stuff of Marx. Long-term unsustainable, but humans live very short lives so they think it can go on forever.

When does it finally sink in as something other than a one-week wonder?

[Major Nikon]

4. It's news because we now have economic models for the causes of income inequality

It goes further than just showing that the trickle-down is nonsense (which has already been proven). It demonstrates how those tax policies have a direct effect on income inequality and shows that where we're heading is back to the days when the only real wealth was inherited wealth.

[JackRiddler]

24. We had the economic models for the causes of income

inequality back in 1776, and 1850, and 1920.

Trickle down was just as much "nonsense" back under Prime Minister Andrew Mellon in 1921-1933. This particular robber baron who ran the country's economic policy during those years did so under the title of "Treasury Secretary." There was nothing nonsensical about what he wrought, not to him or to the front men, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. It was entirely rational policy on behalf of their class. Exactly like "trickle down" was to the rich right-wingers who instituted that in the 1980s. Never mind that they had a story for all the fish they were eating -- you and me and a few hundred million other people -- about how this was to bring "prosperity" and happy days and whatever other bullshit. They understood it was about class war, by the ruling class and its power elite on everyone else. It's time that more of the people who are actually under attack in this war understand that it is a class war, and that bad policies are not enacted because the policy makers are misguided or fooled by some ideology. On the contrary, the ideology is invented over and over again to fit the interests of the ruling class. This is why it won't matter how many times the traditional liberals like Krugman declare that neoliberalism has "failed." The solution will always be the same: more neoliberalism, neoliberalism in a new guise.

[Victor_c3]

30. Yes, we had economic models back then, but this one is much more in depth

With the advent of modern income tax initiated around 1910-1920 in much of the developed world, a precise wealth of information is available now that never was before that time period. Prior to having to fill out a tax return, most people didn't know exactly how much they made let alone how much various tiers of our society made. To economist and philosophers before this time, it was guess work at best. Additionally, computers dramatically aid in the mining of this vast array of data which wasn't possible decades ago.

I'm only about 10% of the way through the book, but it is a very modern look that applies the most up-to-date statistics possible to something that we all knew was the case in our guts or from a hodgepodge of various charts and graphs. Having modern and "fresh" facts are key to us winning these debates of income inequality.

Actually, Thomas Picketty and several other economist have put together a great website where you can pull charts and graphs illustrating a wealth of income information for a large array of nations. If you are at all interested in that sort of thing, I thoroughly recommend the website.

[url]http://topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/[/url]

[Victor_c3]

33. Just felt the need to add this

In the beginning section of the book Picketty flat out states that income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing. Unjustified income inequality is the problem. That is where we need to point the fight at.

I believe that some people deserve to make more money and even be wealthy, but that doesn't mean that people who work full time shouldn't be able to live a decent lifestyle for 40 hours of work a week and that they shouldn't have a secure retirement at a reasonable age.

[Skink]

10. the golden age of capitol was highly regulated

we must return to that.

[TBF]

14. If you want to save capitalism

that's definitely your best bet.

Others of us will be pushing for a more equitable system, but you are definitely correct in your assessment.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

22. Nicely said!

[defacto7]

26. Double nicely said.

n/t

[dotymed]

16. IMO Jackriddler, it is always "delivered as though it were news"

because "our" MSM never has treated it as news. It may get an occasional superficial mention, but not a continual updated,
in depth analysis. Remember the "Iran Hostage Crisis?" Everyday their background banners updated the number of days
(extended because of Reagan) the hostages remained in captivity. Now that was a news a news story because they could blame our sitting Democratic President and help insure Reagans (society devastating) election.

IF they would use the same tactic using true economic data, then everyone would know that Unfettered capitalism is not
a viable economic system. They could even show how it makes Democracy impossible. Of course an informed public is
nothing for a "news" program to strive for. Especially when there is so much entertainment "news" and plain old lying to be done.

[Scuba]

5. Seems the People get it, even if DC and the national pundits don't. Check out #'s 1, 2 and 5 ....

Amazon best seller list, 4/24/14...

[m-lekktor]

15. I have the Flash Boys on my kindle as well as the Piketty one.

which i have yet to read. so many books, so little time. I probably won't read the Elizabeth Warren book because i never read books written by politicians. I always figure they are spin and bullshit. maybe she is different, maybe i will change my mind.

[PotatoChip]

29. It looks as if the 'never-read-the-book' 1 star reviewers have been at work here.

Only a few days ago, it had 4 full stars, and half of a 5th.

This book is really getting to them.

[Victor_c3]

31. I was getting ready to point that out as well

I'm enjoying reading some of the reviews.

"Piketty is just part of the 99% who has an irrational hatred of the great Ronald Reagan, and doesn't have the patience for the wealth to trickle down to him."

There are lots of gems like this in the 1-star ratings!

Obviously these people either didn't read the book, read articles about the book, or at best skimmed the book themselves. I've been reading it pretty diligently and I'm nowhere near the end of the book yet.

[Scuba]

32. Or they were paid to pan the book. I'm going with paid.

[thesquanderer]

8. So maybe a liberal *can* win in 2016.

We just have to hope that one runs.

[TBF]

12. It tells the damned truth - that's how. :) nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Not trying to start anything; but ...

have you read it? Do you have the academic/scholastic/self-trained background/ability to understand marco/micro economics?

As I stated, up front, I am not trying to start anything (but thought); but if the answer to either of these questions is "No", how would you know the book is "tells the damn truth"?

I'm seeing more and more that self-described "liberals/progressive" are relying on second, or third-hand interpretations of information, to form opinions on most of the topics of the day ... if the pundit of my choice says something good about something than it must be good.

While it may be ... our intellectual laziness, also sets us up to be manipulated ... that's why affinity fraud is so effective.

Just saying ...

[TBF]

20. I can rely on reviews from

Respected reviewers to start with, but yes I took economics courses at the University of Wisconsin. It's a fair question - no offense taken.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. I'm just glad ...

the reviews are just a starting place; rather than, the opinion destination. That is a rarity these days.

[CTyankee]

36. I did take a graduate level course in Economics in a Liberal STudies program.

From that I did learn the process by which economists put forward their theories. It is pure math, really, greatly enhanced I suspect by computer science. While I moaned and groaned my way through that course (which was entitled "The Question of Value&quot I learned a great deal, since as an undergrad I was a Fine Arts major and avoided math as much as possible. The Austrian School very nearly killed me and I still have a bit of trouble wrapping my head around "diminishing marginal utility," but I did learn a lot. Now I'm glad I took that course...

[m-lekktor]

13. I need to read this, it's on my kindle.

I need to finish my current book first. this one is getting lots of press and good reviews, even hardcore leftists that wish he leaned more towards the pro- marxist solutions point of view are praising it!

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. another kick

[rhett o rick]

23. There are a lot of Americans that want a change from a Wall Street dominated government.

Obama promised that change in 2007 but failed to deliver. We need a real progressive to run and put an end to the reign of Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold.

[Kablooie]

25. I'm starting to read it and it seems remarkably readable and reasearched.

I also read some one star reviews on Amazon and can tell right away that none of them have read a single page the book. Their Fox News parroted comments have nothing at all to do with the content of the book.

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. A ground breaking book

Many visionaries have wrestled with this problem over the past 130 years. The ideas of three economists, Henry George, E. F. Schumacher and Herman Daly, have helped lay the groundwork for a Restoration Economy.

In the 1870s Henry George dedicated his first book "to those who, seeing the vice and misery that spring from the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, feel the possibility of a higher social state and would strive for its attainment." He challenged the assumptions of the classical economists in the late 1800s. He saw land and natural systems as a birthright for all of humanity. He made economic justice a focal point of his concerns.

In reorienting economics to concentrate on the value of land and natural systems, he created a firestorm of dissent among established economists who worked feverishly to discredit his views. These mathematically-based professors, working in the finest academies of the British Empire, created a neo-classical economics that re-emphasized their self-centered economic man, the virtue of free trade and posited that natural capital could simply be replaced by manufactured capital.

In the mid-twentieth century E. F. Schumacher began to develop what has become known as humanistic or Buddhist economics, which puts human needs ahead of financial gain. He laid out his vision in his seminal book Small is Beautiful. He challenged the neo-classical paradigm with thoughts like:

· “The aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity.”

· “Ever bigger machines, entailing ever bigger concentrations of economic power and exerting ever greater violence against the environment, do not represent progress: they are a denial of wisdom. Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle, the non- violent, the elegant and beautiful."



, beginning in the latter decades of the twentieth century, helped create a new economic vision called ecological economics. This growing field of academicians challenges the neo-classical claim that land and natural systems can be replaced by manufactured capital. They concentrate on the finite scale of our planet and the inevitable depletion of our fossil fuel energy resources. They emphasize that quality is far more important than quantity. A restoration economy recognizes that economic activity exists within a larger sphere of natural systems, Natural systems are not just a component of the economic system. The restoration economy will be a partner with community, creativity and that which brings contentment to maximize a high quality of life. This new economic vision will nurture and strengthen both natural capital and human capital. It will utilize social capital to create economic institutions that promote economic democracy and fairness. It will invest our economic capital in an appropriate and efficient manner. In this framework nature is valued, community is strengthened and people are secure, comfortable and happy.



Henry George: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George


E. F. Schumacher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher




Herman Daly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly



I can't wait for my copy of his book to arrive. Naked Capitalism has a good discussion on the book.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/04/corrupting-piketty-21st-century.html

[Gothmog]

28. I am planning on buying and reading this book

I am looking forward to reading this book. Trickle down economics have never worked and even today the GOP want to rely on this theory. The GOP want to use "dynamic scoring"' to support the Ryan budget which is simply a way for the GOP to use trickle down economics to justify their extreme views. I still remember bush and Cheney arguing that the growth generated by the bush tax cuts would pay for such tax cuts. Those claims have been proven false.

I have read a number of good papers on this subject and it seems that this book does a great job of putting the facts together on this issue.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. one kick

[Laelth]

35. Bonus kick. n/t

-Laelth