Pikettymania

on the Matthew Effect and how Piketty merely confirmed what people sorta already knew

The Prelude: Redistribution, Inequality and Debt Crisis

• historical context: neoliberalism -> tax competition between states to attract capital -> decline of wages as % of NI
• then, financial crisis -> public debt -> austerity and private debt
• thus even mainstream needed to problematise inequality (not for sake of justice but to ensure economic stability/growth)

The Book

• data from tax records
• capital-income ratio and r > g
• the myth of meritocracy (so essential to neoliberal capitalism) is starting to lose legitimacy as inherited wealth plays a larger role
• solution: global wealth tax, less than r, and only for larger fortunes

Hype and Critique

criticisms from the right, which the authors address:

• disputing the claim that inequality tends to grow (theorising that the rich consume their wealth, or that r isnt always > g)
• that inequality is actually good for fostering innovation (the Paul Graham school of thought)--this criticism misses its mark cus Piketty kinda agrees (he just thinks the dynamics of inheritance will result in the wrong kind of inequality)
• flawed data (he prob underestimates ineq tbh)
• doesn't apply to Germany (but it does if you look at wealth)

from the left:

• that it's too neoclassical; Piketty understands capital as a "thing" instead of a social process (David Harvey). OTOH, Rainer Rilling thinks it's a good thing that the neoclassical mainstream can even conceive of this idea (shifting Overton window?)
• he overlooks central role of class struggle (Graeber): greater redistribution was won by violence + employers needing to buy workers off to contain red menace
• ignores deeper analysis of financial industry + the role that plays in maintaining wealth of the super-rich
• too eurocentric

Capital in the Twenty-First Century--What to Make of It?