A Social State for the Twenty-First Century

Log in

This is a personal project by @dellsystem. I built this to help me retain information from the books I'm reading.

Source code on GitHub (MIT license).

471

0

terms

1

notes

GV4D4 week 10

advocates a progressive global tax on wealth, which would have the side effect of making capital ownership more transparent
he recognises how utopian this is, though, and acknowledges regional (e.g., EU) alternatives as a stepping stone
on the response of govts to financial crisis: he seems to think they did a good job (contrasted to Hoover's liquidationist response to the Great Depression)
otoh, the aftermath did not result in a more progressive tax code this time, which he thinks is necessary this time around
graph of tax revenue (% NI) since 1870: obviously increased a lot (as the state has grown), stabilising after 1980
public spending split between services (edu, healthcare) and transfers/replacement income (pensions, benefits)
pensions account for most of the latter (2/3 to 3/4)
thus growth of fiscal state mostly due to growth of social state
on moral justification of inequality: briefly mentions Rawls' difference principle + Sen's capabilities framework
on challenges for further welfare state growth:
lower growth than during the Golden Ages means it's harder to get support for tax increases (he seems to be assuming that a radically more progressive tax is out of the question)
on social mobility
high tuition fees for higher education as a bottleneck
though even if that were eliminated, it wouldn't fix everything; grade inflation could just occur, and other filters would be used (cites Bourdieu)
on the problem with pay-as-you-go pension schemes due to ageing pop + falling growth rates
he suggests that reforming the pension system is hard but never goes into the (imo obvious) alternative of better public services to alleviate the need for a high pension ...
in developing countries: much smaller social states, partly as a result of externally-foisted liberalisation


        Piketty, T. (2014). A Social State for the Twenty-First Century. In Piketty, T. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press, pp. 471-492

487

If we are to make progress on these issues in the future, it would be good to begin by working toward greater transparency than exists today. In the United States, France, and most other countries, talk about the virtues of the national meritocratic model is seldom based on close examination of the facts. Often the purpose is to justify existing inequalities while ignoring the sometimes patent failures of the current system. In 1872, Emile Boutmy created Sciences Po with a clear mission in mind: “obliged to submit to the rule of the majority, the classes that call themselves the upper classes can preserve their political hegemony only by invoking the rights of the most capable. As traditional upper-class prerogatives crumble, the wave of democracy will encounter a second rampart, built on eminently useful talents, superiority that commands prestige, and abilities of which society cannot sanely deprive itself.” If we take this incredible statement seriously, what it clearly means is that the upper classes instinctively abandoned idleness and invented meritocracy lest universal suffrage deprive them of everything they owned. One can of course chalk this up to the political context: the Paris Commune had just been put down, and universal male suffrage had just been reestablished. Yet Boutmy’s statement has the virtue of reminding us of an essential truth: defining the meaning of inequality and justifying the position of the winners is a matter of vital importance, and one can expect to see all sorts of misrepresentations of the facts in service of the cause.

great quote that ties in nicely with http://bookmarker.dellsystem.me/note/2102

—p.487 by Thomas Piketty 6 years, 11 months ago

If we are to make progress on these issues in the future, it would be good to begin by working toward greater transparency than exists today. In the United States, France, and most other countries, talk about the virtues of the national meritocratic model is seldom based on close examination of the facts. Often the purpose is to justify existing inequalities while ignoring the sometimes patent failures of the current system. In 1872, Emile Boutmy created Sciences Po with a clear mission in mind: “obliged to submit to the rule of the majority, the classes that call themselves the upper classes can preserve their political hegemony only by invoking the rights of the most capable. As traditional upper-class prerogatives crumble, the wave of democracy will encounter a second rampart, built on eminently useful talents, superiority that commands prestige, and abilities of which society cannot sanely deprive itself.” If we take this incredible statement seriously, what it clearly means is that the upper classes instinctively abandoned idleness and invented meritocracy lest universal suffrage deprive them of everything they owned. One can of course chalk this up to the political context: the Paris Commune had just been put down, and universal male suffrage had just been reestablished. Yet Boutmy’s statement has the virtue of reminding us of an essential truth: defining the meaning of inequality and justifying the position of the winners is a matter of vital importance, and one can expect to see all sorts of misrepresentations of the facts in service of the cause.

great quote that ties in nicely with http://bookmarker.dellsystem.me/note/2102

—p.487 by Thomas Piketty 6 years, 11 months ago

Capital in the Twenty-First Century
by Arthur Goldhammer, Thomas Piketty

Capital in the Twenty-First Century
by Arthur Goldhammer, Thomas Piketty

Capital in the Twenty-First Century
by Arthur Goldhammer, Thomas Piketty