O problema da direita chamado Piketty

Apr 30, 2014 J. Bradford DeLong

BERKELEY – No jornal on-line, The Baffler, Kathleen Geier tentou fazer recentemente uma síntese da crítica conservadora sobre o novo livro de Thomas Piketty Capital in the Twenty-First Century [O capital no Século XXI]. O que mais me surpreende é quão fraca a avaliação dos argumentos de Piketty, por parte da direita, acabou por ser.

A tese de Piketty é pormenorizada e complicada. Mas há cinco pontos que parecem particularmente relevantes:

1. A riqueza da sociedade em relação ao seu rendimento anual irá crescer (ou diminuir) para um nível igual à sua taxa de poupança líquida dividida pela sua taxa de crescimento.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

J. Bradford DeLong

Writing for PS since 2002
227 Commentaries

J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing the bailout of Mexico during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies, and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic-policy debates.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 19 Comments on this article

Christopher Goodwin Oct 2, 2014

In reply to Zsolt Hermann
Assuming, of course, that the unified global, integral system is viable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alasdair MacLean Jun 3, 2014

In France, Hollande's party is the SOCIALIST party. Royal was his rival. Piketty was her economic advisor in her campaign. What is the problem in using the word Socialist. Europeans do it all the time because it is a political and economic grouping. In Europe it is used to describe middle left redistributionists or soft Marxists. Far left, hard Marxists are called communists. So in France, say, there is also the COMMUNIST party. Some parties are broad church say the British Labour Party. It has socialists and social democrats. But when described as socialist rather than social democrat you know that he is more excessively redistributionist. The real issue is more the USA where socialism is alien to any main stream party and an uncomfortable label with some. The Democrats are in European terms more centre based social democrats. People need to understand that if you are a redistributionist like Piketty you are going to be called in European terms a Socialist. If you don't like it change your views but don't think the political correctness is going to change the use of the correct label however uncomfortable a person may be with receiving it.
A further point is that the right could have gone down the road of highlighting the current rejection of the Socialist Party in France due to their failed economic policies. His book is of more interest in the USA than in France would be another line of thought. Why then the undue interest in American then would be the main line of thought and maybe they would end up with Socialists who don't like the label.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dale Holmgren May 16, 2014

DeLong thinks that identifying a man with communist ideas of wealth redistribution as a communist is an attack; no, it's just correctly identifying him. Communists like DeLong do not like to be identified as such, because they know most Americans have a natural aversion to the word. Indeed, communists go out of their way to avoid the words communism and socialism, using the words "progressives" "liberals" "social democrats" and, most laughably, "center-left". Also, there's nothing wrong with pointing out France's embrace of socialism down through the ages, from Jean Jaurès and Leon Blum, to Mitterand and Hollande. I am not offended by Bill Gates' wealth, nor do I feel his wealth has prevented me from becoming wealthy. Why is it that the socialists feel that wealth congregated in a few people is dangerous, but power and wealth congregated in a few politicians in Washington is not. This comes down to one issue only, on which all socialists converge; they are envious of the wealth of others, and they want to use government to seize some of that wealth.
- Eric Einhorn Sep 18, 2014
  
  This is the kind of right-wing "McCarthyite" attacks that De Long refers to. Communism, at least since 1917, has referred to Marxist-Leninist regimes a la USSR and China (pre Dong). I guess every public program can be denounced as "socialist" and every redistribution from plutocrats may be "communist." But pursue these paranoid tendencies on a Fox News site, not a site for serious economic and policy debates.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ben Leet May 15, 2014

Since 2008 wealth has increased by $23 trillion, not $223. But that's an increase of $185,000 per household.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ben Leet May 15, 2014

Since 2008 wealth has increased by $223 trillion, from $57 trillion to over $80 trillion, while most households saw their incomes decline by 7%, and millions lost their homes in foreclosure, and national income in 2009 declined for the second time since 1934. The $23 trillion in new wealth increases the average per household net worth from $498,000 to $690,000, though maybe only 5% of households are average or above. The windfall in new wealth is contrary to expectations as the elite financial sector was the primary reason for the economic downturn, yet is now the beneficiary of a windfall. See Flow of Funds report from the FRB, latest iteration for data on the $80 trillion, page 2. Lawrence Mishel states that 59.9% of the economic gains since 1970 went to the top-earning 1% who now earn more income than the lower-earning 60% of households. It does not look like a stable arrangement, for many reasons, and now Piketty has made the case that it's a permanent deal. The newly minted $23 trillion is frosting on Piketty's cake.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee May 5, 2014

Comments on Piketty’s Capital from the Right is filled with a cynical view as expected, while from the Left is steeped in bias; chronicles against inequality however is embedded not in anthropological constructs but in the narratives of our make-believe world orchestrated by self-delusion. The penchant for self-seeking scientific inquiry, that which made all the progress happen, is now a far-cry, steeped in the neo-idealism that the modern world view has created and politics has nurtured that bars the questioning mind to go beyond what is thrust on us by the choices provided in this age of information explosion; Picketty is a noteworthy exclusion in his inquiry that dealt with growth of capital vis-à-vis growth in income and proved how the former moved into the stratosphere while the latter plateaued in most nations.

But I would like to point out two areas, where we have further inquiry to be diverted, one is on circulating capital, which has grown out of proportion augured by the protracted period of near zero interest rates and nurtured by Central banks in particular and secondly how it had helped fuel over production and supply even with a non-existent demand. This contempt of fairness if I can call it is one of the reasons why on earth the stock of wealth could grow where access to such circulating capital was available; minus the circulating capital, the unfortunate have a hapless existence.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christian Frace May 5, 2014

I don't get all this promotion of this book. Seems an American thing and reflects the intellectual decline of the US.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank O'Callaghan May 4, 2014

There is a growth industry in attacking those who point out the glaringly obvious (and odious) inequality and inefficiency of modern capitalism. There has always been a lucrative market awaiting those who have felt compelled to defend opulent wealth. Somehow, the media -owned by the wealthy- have found attacking such writers to be talented, entertaining and utterly indispensable. As John Kenneth Galbraith said: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Heller May 3, 2014

Brad, it seems your article aged quickly (as in overnight). The Piketty phenomenon is immensely entertaining. For the benefit of Project Syndicate’s international readers, one simply must quote a snippet from Robert Shrimsley’s piece at the FT 30th April (same day as yours) about the Nine Stages of the Piketty Bubble:

“Stage six – boredom: As Piketty references become ubiquitous, people begin to lament the overhyping of a book which, while impressive in its erudition, “doesn’t tell us anything we did not know”.

In stage seven – disassociation even supporters begin to be embarrassed to refer to him. Conversations start to include phrases like: “Look, I know it’s a bit cliched to mention Piketty but . . . ” Reassured that nothing will actually change, opponents stop bothering to attack his proposals for a swingeing wealth tax.

Stage eight – denial offers proof the bubble has burst as members of the thinking classes now feel it is chic to admit that they never read the work. The brand is further cheapened for intellectuals when his work is picked up by Russell Brand.

Stage nine – relocation: People move Prof Piketty’s book from the living room to the lavatory, where it sits on a shelf sandwiched between Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time and Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History.”

I do believe that in the space of three weeks we may already have arrived at Stage Nine!

To be more serious, there were in fact rapidly a number of good classical liberal or conservative critiques. If anyone was a wee bit childish now and then, it was justifiable. We were giggling so uncontrollably about the hysteria of the left’s response to Piketty! The Messiah etc. Piketty’s argument itself has actually been treated quite respectfully as an academic contribution, no more or less solid a contribution than many others. The 'problem' really lies with Piketty’s supporters among devotees of Paul Krugman in the USA, who chronically over-hyped Piketty and now have egg on their faces.

You should perhaps read the latest *substantive* critique of Piketty’s thesis (brought to the Anglo-sphere today courtesy of Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution, who himself has written a valid and substantive critique of Piketty’s book).

If people google this -- ‘Critical Remarks on Piketty’s ‘Capital in the Twenty-first Century’ by Stefan Homburg -- they will find the latest “substantive” and “valid” critique of Piketty’s tome.

Finally I must admit to having a penned a Piketty Post myself (from the ‘right’, only very slightly puerile) called ‘The Bad Rentier’. I’m glad to say it has been remarkably popular. You can read it at my website:

michaelgheller.blogspot.com
Heller Economic History Entertainments
- Robert Ley May 10, 2014
  
  Ya' gotta' love it, don't ya'? This post reminds me of the weatherman who reports that it's sunny and bright, but if he'd look out his window he'd see that it was raining. And you all remember the jokes about economics making weather forecasting look like real science, right?
  Wages and income from labor are basically flat for 20 years. Income from capital has skyrocketed, with most of the new wealth going to the upper 0.1%. Yet conservative economists still argue that Piketty is wrong; their academic formulas from the 60s prove that it's still sunny outside. Open the window, guys!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jon Rudd May 4, 2014
  
  So the takeaway from this is that the substance of Piketty's work is of no account whatever and that it's all about hype.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
James Edwards May 3, 2014

The way I see it, the right's attacks on Piketty's book is nothing more than trying to defend the status quo with pithy attacks just like Mr Pethokoukis eloquently noted in his hashtag. Even Bill Kristol noted that on the This Week which he stated that the right don't need to worry about about the book's stated conclusions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
G. A. Pakela May 2, 2014

A thriving community is one where there are many employers and job opportunities, and thus a low level of unemployment and a high level of opportunity. The owners and/or senior management of those business may be defined as "rich," particularly if they reside in the "1%." Would the world be a better place if we began to tax away their wealth and admittedly high earnings? What would this do to the economic vibrancy of this community? Inequality is a fact of life, and nowhere is it as prevalent in academia itself. If we were to apply the Piketty/DeLong/Krugman/Stiglitz approach to academia, we would pass a low prohibiting universities from using test scores, schools and grades as a criteria for admissions and fill the slots with a lottery. All professors would be equally compensated just as their secondary school colleagues. Nobel prizes for economics would be eliminated or subject to a lottery.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo May 2, 2014

It made me very interested in buying the book...

I have one big problem with the stated logic, and it starts on number one.

Savings in a monetary society don't represent hidle resources, they are just an abstraction. Actually the concept of savings IMHO doens't even exist because of the nature of savings in a monetary society.

In the end, I can save resources but I cannot save money. Savings would be only the transformed goods or resources that we don't consume, not the money in bank accounts or stored gold, these are currency or in the limit services and goods..

IMHO, since saving resources is not using them in consumption, but if I don't consume the resources they hold no real value, just potential value. Its like talking about energy, and stating the important is the total level of energy, kynetic and potential...

What's more important, total energy or the energy released? its clear to me that what's is important is kynetic energy.

Clearly IMHO in economy what's important is the consumption, the ammount of goods saved or produced is relative.If they are notcosumed they hold no value for society.

For an oil country, what's the difference in having oil reserves, barrels or money in the bank...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Lam May 1, 2014

Gamesmith94134: Reason and the End of Poverty
United Nations General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals has endorsed the Bank’s anti-poverty target, debate about how to achieve it has revived an old question: Will the benefits of economic growth trickle down on their own, reaching all, or will we need targeted redistributive policies?

First of all, I would call the economic growth trickle-down theory is a myth that the data proved that the inequality have reached its epidemic that even in the developed nations. In fact, many found the wages on labor went down through the economic restrain and unemployment; in some cases, the basis of living expanded and savings is shrinking, especially in the low interest rate and low development. Therefore, I hope United Nations should not be fooled by the present system or development; and compromised on the political pressure that we do need a better welfare state application to solve the problem. It is because eradicate poverty is not applicable through the political system. In order to qualify, you must prove yourself poorer is not a well logic in most of the programs in the global forum.
Perhaps, we would take India for the recent mishaps in promoting the program, more subsidies for the food and more expensive it will be, because rupees will be much cheaper “relatively” to any other currencies. This was a tragedy for India or Brazil which was fallen off the emerging market Nations, the BRICS crumbles. It was the struggle of power and powerless that the trickledown did not ring and was beyond the free market system as many suggested; because it was the proclivity of the wealthy one who would shift to the powerful one to sustain the level of comfort by undermine the market system to compensate their loss on the control of value.
Perhaps, I would take the case in India in achieving the sustainable balance; it must return to its market system that is compatible to its cost of living. In a word, affordability that is free of governmental control and subsidies. Price control in the present mode as in buy food cheaper only cut production if the price is below its cost; it is why there is a secondary cause on inflation after imported more. Many of Indian would question if its government was promoting its plantation scheme on its farmers that turned them into slaves. It was what I heard in the seed exchange program with tremendous rules and regulations that strangled the small framer and workers with its unreal pricing and high cost to keep their production valid. If only government and rubber baron can set price on what they collect, why should Indian produce if their product is not marketable?
Perhaps, there is another problem on the monetary system that inundated with foreign funds and subsidies made crisis more inevitable in turn of the rising cost to produce and less jobs is available. In the past, the micro-financing ended with a bang because it is cost more than credit cards and create shadow banking that so severe that shadow banker may dress in military or policeman kicking down your door at night to collect debt or your land. These are just information I got from hearsay from my charity workers; but If they are true only in the rural area, India should be awoke to enforce what law should applied and how the shadow banking could endanger the lives of India. Am I accusing monopoly in banking or institutionalization make the worst case in the financing system India allows? I hope not.
Perhaps, I would recommend the co-op system in the thorough sense that UN and India would promote the real market system that the small farmer or middle class can survive by enforcing law and regulations that establishes access for them. Subsidies are tools of the powerful ones that price are not how it would balance the book in the procedures of accountings; but it is how they can create the access to the marketable and allow them to function in its value system that affordability can sustain both growth and prosperity. Therefore, UN and India must open its market system in trade and initiated the legal system to enforce what value can assist whom they failed. Rupees can be earned and it is not how value is restored through its audits in the capital goods or real estate. Advancement in trade is not a valid value system since only Indian can initiate its value through its own marketable events like affordability and sustainability.
I am sorry if I would offend India for my single point of view, I would apologize, but these conditions are subjected to review, and I hope Mr. Rajan and Mr. Singh would rethink how subsidies and monetary policy are making the cracks in the value system that inflation will rise unstoppable till everything comes to a halt like recession. Seriously, I think recession would erupt through the present global financial system; and there is no escape to it. However, it is the nature of things that what goes up must come down. It is time to contemplate on what can we do to restore what a marketable system can reestablish it own sense of value that is affordable and sustainable. This is the cycle of life; even for economical growth.
Systems revive themselves even regimes and revolutions, but one will never die------humanity and population.
May the Buddha bless you?
- Christopher Goodwin Oct 2, 2014
  
  In reply to Jonathan LAM
  What is this "free market" of which you fabulate ? There is the theoretical ideal of a "perfect market" - and numerous imperfections in all real markets. But the greatest imperfection, so great as to make the existence of any "free market" anywhere risible, is the destruction of money by President "Tricky Dickie" Nixon in 1971. Going off the gold standard - "just as a temporary measure, of course" (now where have I heard that before ?) - has allowed rampant dollar printing, so that the USA can buy up anything, anywhere, at no price at all: now what kind of market is that ? I can pay for something; you, Mr American, can have it for nothing. This is a MARKET ? Or a licence to steal?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann May 1, 2014

Unfortunately today many people if not most simply retreated into bunkers, under different flags symbolizing political preferences, cultural, religious or philosophical ideas, and they are not even willing to consider anything other people from other bunkers are saying, presenting.
Today humanity lives in "faith below reason".
I agree with the writer that at present it is more obvious for the "right" side of society (although after going deeper it is just as true to the "left side" as well) as any time someone raises a concern about the economy, finances, natural environment, social state of people, those raising the concerns are immediately labelled as "leftist", communist, Marxist and so on.
Such divisions do not make much sense today when even in political parties it is very difficult to find true directions (although in the UK in the run up for next year's election the two main parties seem to create sharper images and directions about themselves than we have seen for a long time).
But the bottom line is today the differences, directions do not mean anything when the whole of humanity has evolved into a globally inter-connected and inter-dependent system, where everybody is responsible and dependent at the same time.
We are all sitting on the same boat, sailing under a single flag.
And this is not some new "ism" or philosophy but a natural, evolutionary necessity.
The time of playing games, sports with each other is over.
Regardless of what is separating us, causing us to even hate each other, we have to rise above the disturbances and connect on that "next plane", in a mutual, common purpose of solving the crisis and building a sustainable future.
Either we understand this global, integral system we evolved into and adapt, or we will not survive evolution.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Huben May 1, 2014

Tyler Cowan does not provide a disclaimer that he has been employed for his entire career as an agent of the plutocrats (the Koch brothers) that Piketty is talking about. Knowing that, it's not surprising that he writes a highly critical review. Ethics, anybody? How many other authors are similarly funded and undisclosed?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.