J.J. Goldberg

How a French Economics Prof Became U.S. Pop Idol

By J.J. Goldberg

  • Print
  • Share Share

Author-economist Thomas Piketty speaking at University of California-Berkeley, April 23, 2014 / Getty Images

If you haven’t yet gotten your copy of Thomas Piketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, you might as well relax. First of all, both Amazon and Barnes & Noble are sold out, so if you haven’t picked one up already, there’s no pointing in rushing out. Second, I’m about to give you a quick summary and point you toward some short readings that give you a taste while you wait. And then there’s always Kindle.

Piketty’s Capital is a publishing phenomenon. It’s a densely-written, 685-page analysis by a professor of modern economic history and theory, translated from French, that’s become a runaway international best-seller in the six short weeks since its publication in English March 10. The topic is inequality and the ability of free-market capitalism to mitigate it through growth and job creation. Piketty argues that it doesn’t work.

Unlike many popular books on the economy that spout opinion and toss in anecdotes, Piketty’s book is based on analysis of an unprecedented trove of data. He and a posse of colleagues collected hard numbers on income and wealth by digging through national tax records in the United States, Japan and a half-dozen European countries, going back to the beginnings of such record-keeping — in some cases more than two centuries. A lot of scholars and journalists are calling the result a game-changer that will prove as significant in redefining the terms of economic policy debate as Karl Marx in the 19th century, John Maynard Keynes between the world wars and Simon Kuznets and Milton Friedman in the postwar era.

Two new review-essays sum up Piketty’s findings and arguments in a few easily readable paragraphs. One is this Harvard Business Review blog post by Justin Fox, the executive editor of Harvard Business Review Group. The other, longer one is this essay by Jeff Faux, founder and currently distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-backed think tank in Washington. You can read them to save yourself the trouble of reading the entire book. A warning, though: They’ll probably make you want to read the whole thing.

But if you’re impatient, here’s the quick version:

Piketty’s basic thesis is that a pure free market economy tends naturally to redistribute income upwards. It was only because of two world wars and a Great Depression that America and the West experienced an anomalous 40 years of declining inequality, widespread prosperity and the emergence of a robust middle-class. The depression and world wars had the effect, first, of destroying vast amounts of accumulated wealth, and second, of permitting the political system to impose extremely progressive tax rates. High taxes on the rich, he writes, are the one thing that effectively prevents steadily growing inequality.

He argues further that, historically, most inequality results not from higher and lower salaries but from large fortunes, usually inherited. The major exception is current-day America, where corporate “super-managers” win huge salaries through their influence with their boards, allowing them to accumulate fortunes during their own lifetimes that they can then pass on.

Accumulated capital tends to grow faster than the overall economy, he says, and larger fortunes grow faster than smaller ones. Both tendencies have the effect of constantly widening the gap between the top and everyone else. It follows, too, that since salaries only rarely keep up with accumulated wealth, it’s a mistake to expect that strategies built on increasing individual opportunity — education and training, for example — can narrow the gaps.

The two top columnists on the New York Times Op-Ed page, liberal Paul Krugman and conservative David Brooks, wrote strong point-counterpoint essays yesterday (Friday) on Piketty-mania that capture the essence of the debate the book has touched off. Krugman’s piece, “The Piketty Panic,” takes on the conservative counter-attack that’s been mounted since the book appeared in English two weeks ago. He argues that the right is panicking because Piketty has irreparably demolished its arguments, resulting in a flood of name-callling instead of counter-arguments.

Brooks’ piece, “The Piketty Phenomenon,” reads like an unintentional illustration of what Krugman’s talking about. He argues that Piketty ignores the important role of human capital — including education and training — in narrowing the gaps.

I still maintain, as I argued some years back, that the best way to start thinking about inequality — if you’re wondering whether it really matters, or if you sense that does but you’re not sure how or why — is to check out the 10-part series by journalist Timothy Noah that ran in Slate.com in September 2010, “The Great Divergence.” It’s a painless, easily accessible, stunningly comprehensive explanation of what American economic inequality looks like and the various factors that contribute to it.

I also recommend my own blog post from September 2010, in which I pointed you toward several database websites with tax, income and inflation facts that let you do your own exploring.


Permalink | | Share | Email | Print | Filed under: Timothy Noah, Thomas Piketty, Simon Kuznets, Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, David Brooks

The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.




Find us on Facebook!
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.