Here is James Pethokoukis’ take on Thomas Piketty’s new book that was mentioned in class yesterday.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/how-to-respond-to-thomas-pikettys-inequality-alarmism/
Here is James Pethokoukis’ take on Thomas Piketty’s new book that was mentioned in class yesterday.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/how-to-respond-to-thomas-pikettys-inequality-alarmism/
http://time.com/73060/thomas-piketty-book/
This link is Time’s write-up on the Picketty book. I really like the discussion of how Picketty doesn’t think that Capitalism is a “flawed” system (in that it will burn itself out via some economic collapse), but he suggests that it is a “doomed” system (in that it will be undone more by the collapse of society’s faith in the system). I’m initially persuaded by the argument that, as he puts it, “economic inequality makes for a less perfect union.” It doesn’t seem to be based in a symbolic concern of whether inequality is fair. The argument instead seems based in a practical concern of what the societal effects of that inequality are. What happens when the “99%” get fed up with the inequality?: perhaps the way of the French aristocracy in the 1700s, as the article seemingly alludes. Even if you’re firmly entrenched in a position on the importance of resolving/addressing economic inequality based on normative principles and tags (conservative, liberal, or Marxist), considering the effects of such inequality may be just as important. It seems Picketty thinks his historical inquiry counsels us to adopt some very radical redistributive measures to avoid the purported consequences of growing economic inequality.