Spotlight on Piketty
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2015
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
Filmed at the Emmanuel Centre on 11th May 2015.
Thomas Piketty’s book 'Capital in the 21st Century' was the publishing sensation of 2014. An analysis of the causes and growth of inequality, it has sold nearly half a million copies worldwide. It was described by many reviewers as the economic book not just of the year, but of recent decades.
How is it that a young, largely unknown French economist stirred up such a massive worldwide debate on inequality, a topic that Nobel Prize-winning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have been writing about for most of their careers? The answer lies in Piketty’s main argument, backed up by his extensive research, which states that capital - whether invested in the stock market or property - will always grow faster than income. As a result, he argues, people who are already rich will carry on getting richer, while those who depend on income will never catch up. Piketty’s solution? A global redistribution of wealth that would give poorer earners some capital to invest.
In this rare appearance in London, Piketty will appear centre stage for Intelligence Squared, along with a panel of experts to debate his findings. Do the alleged inaccuracies found in Piketty’s historical data affect the premise of his book? Is he right to predict that inequality will continue to rise during the 21st century? Is the allegedly growing wealth gap a threat to democracy? And what should we make of his proposal for a global tax on wealth?
" if you want to study wealth by exluding the rich, you waste your time" That quote from piketty summs it up for the petty oposition in this debate.
And, comparing Sweden, that reports on actual wealth documented and taxable assets, and UK analyses SELF reported wealth. Ridiculous for these interviewers to try to discount this point. Intellectually dishonest....
Three obviously biased (and often dishonest) opponents still cannot refute his basic premise.
It's reminds me of people being lynched for preaching other crazy ideas like; the earth isn't the center on the universe or the earth is round as opposed to flat. If we can land a probe on a moving asteroid then I'm pretty sure we can do this.
"In my book I actually start from a quote from the Declaration of Rights of 1789, that's actually Article I, saying "social distinction must be based on common utility.""
"... these are issues which we cannot leave to others, to a small group of experts or economists, these are issues at the core of our democratic discussion."
Absolute genius. Piketty and Agamben in academia, Krasznahorkai and Knausgaard in literature...geniuses...
A person that owns a factory nowadays can rely more in the machinery and less on people. We are loosing a lot of jobs, just look to the self serves in grocery stores. We are looking to the rise on the billionaires and a decrease of the medium and poor classes. Should the owner pay more taxes for each robot hired?
I agree with you C Schneider, they are in their “armchair” not doing their homework before criticizing
I love this video so much!!
hahahehehe
I love the "state is bad wealth administrator" argument. Yes, its correct, but corporations are worse. State if rules are made properly has a long term plan for the whole state, for citizens etc. Corporation only for itself, it does not care usuall,y as we are proven over and over, about society or environment. Its just marketing to support some environment or social issues, it is part of branding in marketing. Why do you think European countries didn't go totally away from socialism after USSR collapsed? Because it works on many levels. But people still need to take care of it, which is a big issue in a society like this when you have to work a lot a most don't have time to care properly about society, sometimes there is not even time to care properly for the family in some jobs.
P.S. I think its good to have big corporations and rich people who can invest in big things, but rich middle class and big middle class makes sure we can have good purchasing force on the market that can support new ideas by corporations and probably provides is with bigger variety of things as we can use more money to support different things.
The institution is always in the hnds of powerfull and often shaped by their will , your if and buts are silly sir !
In developed countries, people can avoid taxes but in developing countries, people can evade taxes, bribe tax officers, and give something to the political masters..
The one guy who talks about private capital being important for innovation while government isn't good at administering wealth has not looked in a history book, I feel like.
Most innovative technologies were developed by government subsidies. Just look at what has come out of NASA, the internet, the computer, etc. or what universities do.
A lot of technology that our modern society relies upon was funded by government subsidies and then later on given to the private sector to capitalize on it.
Also SpaceX wouldn't be where it is today without the gigantic government contracts.
limits on wealth is on the agenda. if we limit the concentration of ownership of certain business sectors as bad for the economy , then past a certain level, the concentration of wealth is harmful too.
He is full of B.S. ????????