Podcasts about piketty

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The podcast arrives at 'late stage' Gary discourse as Matt and Chris attempt to enter the man, the myth, and the legend, Gary Stevenson, into a reductive classification system (that once again includes no mention of inequality). The gurometer was not built to handle this level of elite education and trading acumen, and has often been dismissed by arrogant elites due to its scrappy nature and lack of fancy credentials... but it persists. Just remember, an attack on the Gurometer is ultimately an attack on you, your family, and all you hold dear.SourcesReddit thread asking us to do betterJacobin: Portrait of the Trader as a Young RebelRichard Murphy's analysis of Gary's EconomicsTax Policy Associates' analysis of some tax reform proposalsGary on Twitter explaining that traders understand the economy a lot better than economists like Piketty and StiglitzThe full episode is available for Patreon subscribers (47 mins).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusGurometer of Gary01:02 Gary Stevenson: Other Opinions07:31 Gary's Wealth Tax Proposal12:21 Guru Features and Scoring13:11 Galaxy Brainness15:34 Cultishness18:04 Anti-Establishmentarianism20:04 Grievance Mongering23:15 Self Aggrandisement and Narcissism24:25 Cassandra Complex25:40 Revolutionary Theories28:12 Pseudo Profound Bullshit30:07 Conspiracy Mongering32:21 Excessive Profiteering34:24 Moral Grandstanding36:14 Guru Scoring and Analysis37:34 Quick Fire Guru Bonus Points40:37 Matt's confusing Binary Measure

Piketty hoeft geen boek meer te schrijven na deze aflevering. 

Vandaag bespreken we het boek Gelijkheid van Thomas Piketty en Michael Sandel. Ondertitel: Wat het is en waarom het er toe doet Klein boek - 150 pagina's - twee experts op het gebied van gelijkheid in de maatschappij, een met Europese visie ander met Amerikaanse visie. Eerder bespraken we De tirannie van verdienste van Sandel. https://decideforimpact.com/tirannie-van-verdienste-boekencast-afl-77/  Voorwoord Tom ‘S Jongers - Armoede uitgelegd aan mensen met geld https://decideforimpact.com/armoede-uitgelegd-aan-mensen-met-geld-boekencast-afl-105/  Het is een fijn boek, de transcriptie van een gesprek tussen Piketty en Sandel op 20 mei 2024 aan de Paris School of Economics - waar Piketty professor is. Het leest fijn en gaf mij veel inzichten in korte tijd. Ik ben een groot fan van dit boek omdat het gelijkheid aan veel meer mensen kan uitleggen in begrijpelijke taal, al is er nog ruimte voor verbetering. Zoals ik zelf voor sociale én ecologische gelijkheid ga. Het gesprek lijkt zich te concentreren op gelijkheid in de Westerse omgeving, waarbij de kapitalistische economie een belangrijke rol blijft spelen. Het boek heeft negen hoofdstukken Voorwoord Tim ‘s Jongers 1 Waarom moeten we ons zorgen maken over gelijkheid? 2 Zou geld minder belangrijk moeten zijn? 3 De morele grenzen van markten 4 Globalisering en populisme 5 Meritocratie 6 Lotingen: zouden ze een rol moeten spelen bij de toelating tot universiteiten en de selectie van parlementaire vertegenwoordigers? 7 Belastingheffing, solidariteit en gemeenschap 8 Grenzen, migratie en klimaatverandering 9 De toekomst van links: identiteit en economie Nawoord Voorwoord Tim ‘s Jongers Tim onderschrijft uiteraard de visie van Sandel en Piketty, sterker nog hij ziet ze als gidsen op het pad van de radicale wending. OF het wachten op de hooivorken. Tim noemt alvast twee ideeën voor deze radicale wending, limitarisme (boek van Robeyns) en belastingen op erfenissen. 1 Waarom moeten we ons zorgen maken over gelijkheid? In Europa rijkste 10 procent bezit meer dan 50% van totale vermogen. Al is de lange langetermijntrend richting meer gelijkheid. Drie redenen waarom ongelijkheid een probleem is: universele toegang tot basisvoorzieningen, politieke gelijkheid (inspraak, invloed, macht en participatie) en waardigheid. Liberté, égalité et fraternité ofwel Vrijheid, gelijkheid en broederschap. Als je als rijkere tijd van anderen kunt kopen, dan schept dat sociale afstand. Piketty benoemt de Noord-Zuid-dimensie - de welvaart in het Noorden heeft kunnen groeien door de exploitatie van natuurlijk en menselijke hulpbronnen uit het Zuiden. 2 Zou geld minder belangrijk moeten zijn? Sandel drie aspecten om ongelijkheid tegen te gaan: progressievere belastingheffing, een uitbreiding van de welvaartsstaat en successiebelasting (erfenis voor iedereen). Als burgers hun krachten bundelen kunnen ze voor verandering zorgen. Participatief en democratisch socialisme. Decommodificatie om inkomens en vermogensongelijkheid irrelevant te maken (99 procent). Het monetaire component van het inkomen is 1 procent van het nationaal inkomen. Een sociale staat (ipv welvaartsstaat) mogelijk gemaakt door opkomst van vakbonden, socialezekerheidsfondsen, en sociale bijdragen. De salaris en inkomenskloof drastisch verminderen. 3 De morele grenzen van markten 4 Globalisering en populisme 5 Meritocratie Het is niet ‘jouw' geld. 6 Lotingen: zouden ze een rol moeten spelen bij de toelating tot universiteiten en de selectie van parlementaire vertegenwoordigers? 7 Belastingheffing, solidariteit en gemeenschap publieke dienstverlening met publieke middelen verbeteren 8 Grenzen, migratie en klimaatverandering 9 De toekomst van links: identiteit en economie Immigratie een kwestie die ons dwingt om te kijken naar het morele belang van nationale grenzen, en het morele belang van landen.

Faut-il transformer le capitalisme et comment pour réduire nos émissions de gaz à effet de serre ? Ou à l'inverse est-il la solution pour mener la bataille climatique ? Comment penser un système économique différent et qui améliore la vie du plus grand nombre ?Thomas Piketty est économiste, auteur de nombreux ouvrages sur les inégalités de richesse, notamment "Le Capital au XXIe siècle". Il est également co-auteur, avec Julia Cagé, d'une somme sur la démocratie parue en 2022 "Une histoire du conflit politique". Il est également chroniqueur au Monde, et ses articles ont été publiés en 2025 au Seuil sous le titre "Vers le socialisme écologique".« Chaleur humaine » est un podcast hebdomadaire de réflexion et de débat sur les manières de faire face au défi climatique. Ecoutez gratuitement chaque mardi un nouvel épisode, sur Lemonde.fr, Apple Podcast ou Spotify. Retrouvez ici tous les épisodes.Cet épisode a été produit par Cécile Cazenave et réalisé par Thomas Zeng. Musique originale : Amandine Robillard.Chaleur humaine c'est aussi un livre qui reprend 18 épisodes du podcast en version texte, que vous pouvez retrouver dans votre librairie favorite.C'est toujours une infolettre hebdomadaire à laquelle vous pouvez vous inscrire gratuitement ici. Vous pouvez toujours m'écrire et poser vos questions à l'adresse chaleurhumaine@lemonde.frNabil Wakim Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.

La Ciudad de México se convirtió en el refugio de miles de haitianos que encontraron una segunda oportunidad en esta desmesurada capital de 20 millones de habitantes. Descubrieron que aquí sería posible cumplir el sueño americano sin tener que llegar a Estados Unidos. Lo llaman “el sueño mexicano”.  “No necesitan llegar a Estados Unidos para cumplir su sueño”, dice con tono de seguridad Don Peter refiriéndose a sus compatriotas haitianos. Él llegó a México en 2023 y un año y medio después ya festejaba el primer aniversario de su negocio. “Empezar siempre no es fácil, pero después de un año se va a acostumbrar a la cultura y se va pa' lante”, afirma.Su nombre completo es Peterson Datos, pero sus clientes y amigos le dicen Don Peter, además de que sus negocios lucen este nombre. La apacible atmósfera de su tienda tapizada de trenzas afro, licores de coco y animada por una clientela haitiana que habla en creole (el principal idioma de Haití) contrasta con el caótico y estridente ambiente de la alcaldía donde nos encontramos, Tláhuac, al sur de Ciudad de México. Y como suena una pegajosa canción haitiana que invita a bailar al visitante, es fácil imaginarse que así es la vida en el Caribe haitiano. Mientras nos muestra sus diversos y coloridos productos, Don Peter nos explica que muchos de sus compatriotas decidieron quedarse en México porque consideraban que hay muchas oportunidades, desde la escuela gratuita para los niños hasta la posibilidad de estudiar la universidad y, por supuesto, trabajo. Él, por ejemplo, se siente muy orgulloso por lo que ha logrado en tan poco tiempo, pues a finales de 2024 ya estaba abriendo un segundo negocio, un restaurante de comida haitiana justo a la vuelta del primero. “Todo va bien gracias a Dios, y gracias a México por las oportunidades que me da”, comenta.La invención del sueño mexicanoLas autoridades mexicanas se vieron sorprendidas cuando México se convirtió en el destino de miles de migrantes porque hasta antes de la pandemia se le consideraba un país de origen y de tránsito hacia Estados Unidos. La diplomacia mexicana informó a finales de 2024 que la comunidad haitiana es una de las más numerosas con cerca de 100.000 haitianos instalados en el país y la mayoría viviría en Ciudad de México, cerca de 45.000, según la prensa local.“¡Fue un choque!”, cuenta Michel Cortés al recordar el día en que vio por primera vez a un grupo de haitianos a las afueras del centro cultural donde les brinda clases gratuitas de español. “Yo creo que ellos nos veían como raro y nosotros a ellos”, agrega.Los capitalinos ya se habían familiarizado con las caravanas de migrantes iniciadas en 2018, que eran pasajeras, pero nunca habían visto tantos improvisados y prolongados campamentos como los que acapararon sus banquetas, plazas y parques en los tiempos de Covid. Llegó un momento en que los albergues ya no podían atender a tanta necesidad, y los migrantes encontraron refugio al sur de la capital, donde la vida es más económica. Con lonas de viejas campañas electorales alzaron tiendas que apenas los protegían de las frías noches del altísimo altiplano mexicano, que se encuentra a 2.240 metros sobre el nivel del mar, y de los ardientes rayos de sol del mediodía, y para bañarse asistían a regaderas que los locales les rentaban en sus domicilios. En estos campamentos vivían médicos, cargadores, taxistas, profesoras, estilistas… haitianas y haitianos de todos los horizontes que en un principio sólo estaban de paso, pero que años después México se convertiría en su segundo hogar.Su presencia causaba malestar para muchos lugareños que se quejaban de que no podían caminar por las banquetas, de que las autoridades no les brindaban sanitarios y de que se sentían inseguros con estos nuevos vecinos. Tiempo después muchos comprenderían que habían sido injustos tratándolos de delincuentes como algunos estadounidenses lo hacen con los mexicanos en Estados Unidos. Con su llegada, los mexicanos aprendieron de golpe que Haití era el país más pobre del continente americano y que huían de su isla porque había sido azotada por varias tragedias. Primero por el terremoto del 12 de enero de 2010 que le quitó la vida a más de 280 000 personas, y luego por la ola de violencia desatada tras el asesinato del presidente Jovenel Moïse, el 7 de julio de 2021, incontrolable hasta nuestros días y que obligó a más de un millón de haitianos a dejar su domicilio (la población de Haití es de poco más de 11,5 millones).“Todo el mundo quiere huir del país porque está cansado. Todos los días hay balazos p'arriba, p'abajo… Todo el mundo si sale de Haití no piensa regresar”, cuenta Don Peter, triste y enfurecido. Además de la violencia que reina en aquel país caribeño, los mexicanos supieron de la espinosa relación entre Haití y Francia cuando el presidente galo, Emanuel Macron, insultó a los dirigentes haitianos llamándolos "idiotas" por haber destituido a un exministro, Garry Conille, que él apoyaba. Aquella frase le dio la vuelta al mundo el 21 de noviembre de 2024. Varios especialistas reaccionaron recordándole a Macron que parte de la desgracia de los haitianos se explica por la injusta deuda que los excolonos franceses les impusieron tras su independencia, en 1804. El famoso economista francés, Thomas Piketty, explica en su libro Capital e ideología que en 1825 Haití aceptó un préstamo de 150 millones de francos de oro (que equivaldrían a unos 40 billones de euros hoy en día) de la Caja de Depósitos y Consignaciones (Caisse des dépôts et consignations), una institución francesa existente hasta nuestros días. Sabiendo que ese monto sería imposible de pagar, pero con tal de que no los invadieran nuevamente, los haitianos se resignaron a pagar cada año, y de manera indefinida, un monto que cubría únicamente los intereses y que equivaldría al 15% de su producción anual. Aunque fue renegociada y saldada en 1950, los 125 años de deuda habrían impedido el desarrollo de Haití y por lo cual, dice Piketty, Francia debería reconocer su responsabilidad y pagar una indemnización. El conjunto de tragedias, pobreza y violencia empujó a los haitianos a un éxodo que nadie sabe cuándo ni cómo terminará. La pandemia de Covid los había detenido en México, pero en 2023 banquetas, plazas y parques recobraron su imagen original, ya olvidada por algunos. Las condiciones habían cambiado para seguir hacia Estados Unidos.Unos lo hacían de manera legal, con la cita de la extinta aplicación CBP One creada por Joe Biden para controlar el ingreso de migrantes, otros continuaban arriesgando sus vidas en las peligrosas rutas del Río Bravo y del desierto, y muchos otros, miles, comenzaron a rentar cuartos, departamentos y hasta casas porque durante estos años habían encontrado que aquí era posible cumplir el sueño americano.El plan B“La situación en Haití sigue muy inestable, y aunque México también tiene sus dificultades es un país mucho más seguro, mucho más estable que Haití”, explica el encargado de la Organización para Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE), Thomas Liebig.Nos recibió en sus oficinas en París para comprender por qué en su reporte sobre migraciones de 2024 la OCDE posiciona a México en el sexto lugar de los países con más solicitudes de asilo, detrás de Estados Unidos, Alemania, España, Canadá y Francia en respectivo orden. “¡Es sorprendente la dinámica migratoria de México! Vemos cifras de más del doble [que en tiempos] de la pandemia”, resalta.En 2022 el Gobierno mexicano registró 118.756 solicitudes de asilo (17 mil eran de haitianos); en 2023 fueron 140.980 solicitudes (44 mil eran de haitianos), y en 2024 disminuyeron a 78.975 peticiones (10.853 eran de haitianos). En estos años la comunidad haitiana aparece en los primeros lugares junto con la cubana, la venezolana y la hondureña. “Lo importante es decir que México se ha convertido en un país acogedor de migrantes. No solamente es un país emisor de migrantes, sigue siendo un país de tránsito, pero también un país acogedor de flujos migratorios como se ven en esas cifras”, asegura Liebig. La institución mexicana encargada de atender las solicitudes de asilo es la Comisión Mexicana para Ayudas a Refugiados y a la que los migrantes llaman por sus siglas, la COMAR. Tiene oficinas en diferentes partes del país, incluidas ciudades cercanas a las fronteras como Tijuana y Ciudad Juárez en el norte, y Tapachula y Tuxtla Gutiérrez en el sur. Nosotros visitamos las oficinas de Ciudad de México que se encuentran en la sureña Alcaldía de Iztapalapa, conocida por concentrar barrios de haitianos. Al salir de la estación de metro Escuadrón 201, la más cercana a la COMAR, nos encontramos con Andy, un joven haitiano quien nos permite conversar con él a pesar de que lo agarramos en la hora sagrada de los alimentos.“Aquí estamos tratando de acostumbrarnos con la comida. Nuestra comida es diferente y es mejor”, nos dice soltando una risa e invitándonos a sentarnos en su mesa en un puesto de comida de tacos y hamburguesas. Le preguntamos si tiene algún inconveniente con el picante mexicano. “El de nosotros es un poquito más fuerte, pero es casi lo mismo”, responde.“¿Vinieron a la COMAR a hacer algún trámite?”: “Sí”, contesta. “Estamos en trámite porque como usted sabe lo primero que uno debe de hacer es legalizarse en un país donde piense que tiene un futuro, porque nuestro futuro es vivir en México”; detalla. Andy nos explica que la solicitud de asilo puede durar medio año, y mientras tanto debe venir cada 10 días a firmar un documento para comprobar su presencia en México. Lleva tres meses en este procedimiento. “En máximo seis meses nos van a dar una respuesta, sea negativa o positiva, sé que máximo son seis meses”, afirma. “¿Usted consideraría que México es el país de las segundas oportunidades?”, preguntamos. “Para nosotros… para mí…bueno… para mí sí, porque mi sueño era vivir y llegar aquí en México. Ahora estamos aquí y esperamos lo que Dios diga. Creo que para Dios no hay nada imposible. Creo que todo va a estar bien… todo va a estar bien…”, responde.Para otros migrantes México no es el destino principal, sino el plan B. Una joven haitiana nos cuentó que ella dejó Chile para llegar a Estados Unidos, pero que con el regreso de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca considera quedarse en México. “Ahorita estoy en trámite para obtener asilo o la residencia definitiva. Después de eso ya veré si sigo intentando pasar o no”, dice.El país es de quien lo trabajaA las afueras de la COMAR nos encontramos con un comerciante haitiano que vende paté, las empanadas tradicionales de Haití. Un cubano se acerca a preguntarle que de qué están rellenas y él le responde que de “huevo cocido, pollo, tomate y cebolla”. “No solamente huelen rico, también saben ricas”, así seduce a su cosmopolita clientela. Su nombre es Ernso, llegó a México en abril de 2024 y en diciembre de ese mismo año obtuvo el estatus de refugiado que le brinda los mismos derechos que a un ciudadano mexicano, pero no votar. “Para mí fue muy fácil y rápido”, nos confía. “Estuve en Chile casi siete años y no he tenido [el permiso de residencia]. Tenía todos los requisitos que me han pedido allá pa' tener la credencial de allá y no he podido porque la forma en que lo hacen está muy complicada, pero aquí, en México, es como diez veces más fácil que allá, en Chile”, cuenta.Afirma que no piden “casi nada. Si tienes tu pasaporte vienes con tu pasaporte, [incluso] si no tienes con qué identificarte, vienes. A mí me dieron la entrevista 45 días después de que la solicité. El 3 de octubre [fue la entrevista], y me dieron la resolución el 5 de diciembre. Ahora estoy con el estatus de persona refugiada”, agrega.“Te preguntan que por qué dejaste tu país, por qué estás en México y todo eso. La entrevista dura una hora. Y para las preguntas tienes traductor, tienes una persona ahí para traducir. Tú hablas en tu idioma”, detalla.“¿Y cómo fue que desde Chile llegaste hasta México?”, le preguntamos. “Es un trayecto muy duro, muy complicado. Hay varias formas, pero para mí fue el trayecto del Darién [la peligrosa selva entre Colombia y Panamá]. Había que cruzar todos los países: Chile, Perú, Ecuador, Colombia, hasta Guatemala y llegar hasta la capital [de México]”, cuenta.“El Darién fue duro. Yo no me metí por Tapachula, me metí por Tenosique, y de Tenosique a aquí es peor que Darién porque si te encuentra la migración te puede regresar hasta la frontera. Y también es mucho gasto, porque cobran bastante para llegar hasta aquí. No es un viaje directo hasta la ciudad, puro transporte. Fue duro. Viajando de la frontera a la capital casi es un sueño. Nunca sabes lo que va a pasar. Hay secuestro. Te quitan dinero. Hay violación. Te golpean”, continúa. Ernso nos cuenta su dolorosa y complicada travesía en un impecable español porque comenzó a aprenderlo en República Dominicana, donde vivió antes de intentar el sueño chileno. Nos dice que un momento clave de su historia en México apareció cuando encontró la organización Casa Refugiados: “Ellos me explican los apoyos que tienen para personas refugiadas y de ahí dije ‘ya, llegué a mi país' porque siempre esperaba vivir en un país así”.Días después esta organización apoyada por el Alto Comisionado de Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR) nos abre sus puertas para detallarnos la orientación que brindan a los migrantes. Nos recibe Gabriela Pérez Guerra, periodista nicaragüense que dejó su país en 2018 debido a la insoportable represión instaurada por el presidente Daniel Ortega. Aquí es la encargada de la educación para la paz.Nos cita en un céntrico parque de la Ciudad de México, en la colonia Roma, donde tienen un pequeño centro cultural que están restaurando. En una de las paredes se puede leer “Hagan por los demás todo lo que les gustaría que hicieran por ustedes”. “Esta es la frase de oro. Todos necesitamos ser abrazados, todos tenemos vulnerabilidades, todos tenemos algo que nos duele, pero también todos tenemos cosas lindas y la necesidad de vivir en paz”, dice.Tras contarle la historia de Enrso, nos cuenta que ella también había sido orientada por Casa Refugiados. “La información es clave para tener ejercicio a derechos y a obligaciones en este país”, destaca. Las personas que llegan aquí siguen “La Ruta Humanitaria”, como lo llaman al proceso de acompañamiento que consiste, primeramente, en escuchar las necesidades de cada persona. Les brindan alimento, alojamiento o atención psicológica si la requieren. Luego les proponen una entrevista con un acompañante humanitario y es en ese momento les indican los pasos a seguir si desean pedir refugio en México.  “La gente debe saber cuáles son sus derechos, a dónde acudir, cómo quejarte, cómo proteger tu dignidad. Todas esas cosas también son parte de un proceso de integración, pero que nosotros queremos que escale a inclusión: tengo derecho porque soy un ser humano”, concluye.El hábil vendedor haitiano que nos habló de Casa Refugiados nos asegura que ya se siente “medio mexicano” y que quiere estudiar y hacer más negocios. ‘Yo creo que vamos a tener más entrevistas porque en México, lo prometo, lo voy a hacer en grande”, dice, y así nos despedimos.Siempre la misma historiaUn haitiano perdió un brazo en su trabajo en la primavera de 2024. Se lo cortó una máquina. La empresa no hizo nada por él, pero sí la comunidad haitiana que lanzó una campaña de ayuda en las redes sociales. “El compatriota sigue viviendo de manera muy triste porque no es lo que esperaba”, lamenta el presidente de la Diáspora haitiana en México, Frisnel Joseph, y asegura que los migrantes irregulares son las primeras víctimas de la explotación laboral. “Siempre les decimos que tengan sus papeles en regla porque si llega a pasar algo, como un accidente, la empresa no te va a respaldar… La mayoría de las empresas aquí tienen su propia ley”, añade.Además de exhibir la negligencia de las autoridades mexicanas para investigar las injusticias laborales, Frisnel también expone las desigualdades salariales entre personas legales e ilegales. Pone como ejemplo el trabajo informal en el concurrido mercado de La Merced donde es fácil encontrarse con migrantes provenientes de América Latina, pero también de África, en la clandestinidad.    “A quien tiene papel no le dan trabajo porque es más provechoso darle trabajo a alguien que es ilegal. Las empresas dicen, ‘a quien no tiene papel le doy 100 pesos al día (cerca de 5 euros)', pero el que tiene papel va a decir ‘el salario mínimo es de 300 y tantos pesos al día, me tiene que pagar el salario legal'. Eso pasa también en los Estados Unidos y en muchas otras partes”, explica.Frisnel nos cuenta que su asociación busca una cita con la presidenta de México, Claudia Sheinbaum, para exponerle estas injusticias. De concretarse, le pedirán que cree una asistencia especial para migrantes irregulares víctimas de explotación laboral.“Los migrantes no son asesinos, no son criminales, son personas que buscan una vida mejor. Son personas que en sus propios países han encontrado muchas dificultades, y Haití no es el único país que está pasando por esta situación. Los migrantes vienen a hacer crecer la economía. Los migrantes buscan un refugio en el mundo”, afirma.El “sueño mexicano” de los haitianos es también el sueño de miles de mexicanos, no sólo en Estados Unidos sino en su propio país: quieren justicia, seguridad y condiciones de trabajo que les permitan vivir en paz. Pero también es el sueño de millones de migrantes en todo el mundo que un día guardaron su vida en una mochila y se fueron sin saber cuándo regresarán. O si regresarán.

Karches, Nora www.deutschlandfunk.de, Büchermarkt

Why did Trump win? Did the Democrats lean too heavily on identity politics?Are people being driven by economic frustrations? Or cultural and social issues? Have we entered a new political era? Is this the end of an approach to economics that began with Reagan and Thatcher? The questions are endless for trying to understand this political moment and for diagnosing our current political condition. Harvard's Michael Sandel offers answers on all these and more. He explains to Steve Paikin why he thinks the left lost its way, how Bill Clinton paved the way for Trump, and how the left needs to reclaim a new type of identity politics and restore a sense of dignity to all of those that feel forgotten after three decades of hyper globalization. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to What Just Happened, a Recall This Book experiment. In it you will hear three friends of RTB reacting to the 2024 election and discussing the coming four years. Mark Blyth (whose planned February 2020 appearance was scrubbed by the pandemic) is an international economist from Brown University, whose many books for both scholars and a popular audience include Great Transformations (2002), Angrynomics (2020; with Eric Lonergan) and (with Nicolo Fraccaroli) Inflation: A Guide for Users and Losers (New York: Norton 2025). Mark sees 2008-9 as a true economic and political volta, one that the world has been busily ignoring to its peril in the years since. Early on, Mark mentions his 2016 article "Global Trumpism." Piketty's "Brahmins vs Merchants" explains the diploma divide. The top two employers in America are Amazon and Walmart, both warehouses for foreign goods coming for American consumers. Mark invokes the business cycle theory pioneered by Nikolai Kondratiev known as Kondratiev waves. He also invokes Piketty's "R over G"; that if return on investment among the rentier class exceeds growth, inequality will grow and grow. In the short term, Mark sees immense financial gains mainly for the top but for the middle and bottom as well. The Republicans are in a pole position to capitalize on this. Higher ed is a legitimate site of concern: Blyth points to the Agenda 47 commitment to hamstringing private and public universities in various ways. Is there hope? Well, sort of. US carbon emissions will make less of an impact on global warming than you might think--and yes it is still the most creative and technologically advanced country. Cheers! Tune in tomorrow to hear another perspective from Vincent Brown, and finally from David Cunningham. Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

För att höra hela avsnittet bli medlem på https://www.patreon.com/bildningskomplexet för 30 kr/mån. Du kan när som helst avsluta prenumerationen.Dagens avsnitt handlar om den franska ekonomen Thomas Pikettys verk ”Kapitalet i tjugoförsta århundradet” från 2013. I boken undersöker han förmögenhets- och inkomstfördelningen under de senaste århundradena fram till vår tid. Gäst är Jesper Roine, professor i nationalekonomi vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, och författare till en sammanfattning av Pikettys bok. Piketty visar hur den ekonomiska ojämlikheten ökat i västvärlden sedan 1980-talet. Vi samtalar om Pikettys centrala upptäckter, hans syn på de ekonomiska klyftornas orsaker och lösningar, och vilken betydelse hans forskning har för Sverige. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bildningskomplexet/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BildningskomplexetE-post: benjaminelfors@gmail.comMusikproduktion: Ivar EddingOmslag: Emma Westin/Matthew Sundin Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I ugens liveudgave af Langsomme Samtaler taler Rune Lykkeberg med de to franske økonomer og professorer Julia Cagé og Thomas Piketty om deres nye bog 'Den politiske konflikts historie', der undersøger valg og vælgeradfærd fra 1789 til i dag. Programmet er optaget på Københavns Universitet I denne liveudgave af Langsomme Samtaler taler Rune Lykkeberg med to af verdens førende økonomer, Julia Cagé og Thomas Piketty fra henholdsvis Sciences Po Paris og Écoles des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Privat danner de to verdensstjerner par, men professionelt har de sammen netop udgivet en ny bog, Den politiske konflikts historie, som er udkommet på dansk på Informations Forlag.  I samtalen når de igennem bogens indhold, der er baseret på et omfattende researcharbejde. Cagé og Piketty har digitaliseret og gennemgået vælgerdata fra Den Franske Revolution til i dag, som giver et unikt historisk indblik i, hvordan demokratiet har udviklet sig, både i Frankrig og resten af verden.  Ud fra bogen diagnosticerer de to økonomer venstrefløjens problemer i dag. For hvis venstrefløjen skal have succes, skal den opløse den nuværende territoriale konflikt mellem land og by og i stedet fokusere på den sociale konflikt – det, Cagé og Piketty mener er venstrefløjens egentlige opgave. Samtalen er optaget live på Københavns Universitet.

Me flipa el episodio de The bear en Copenhague. Marcus, que está de prácticas en el Noma, le pregunta a su jefe cómo se hizo bueno en esto. La contestación de Luca es cautivadora: «Esto trata menos de habilidad y más de estar abierto. Hacia el mundo, hacia ti mismo, hacia los demás. Las cosas increíbles que yo he comido no se explican por una habilidad excepcional o una técnica sofisticada, se explican porque alguien se inspiró. Puedes pasar todo el tiempo del mundo aquí, pero si no pasas tiempo suficiente allí fuera. Ayuda, claro, estar rodeado de gente buena». Marcus le pregunta entonces si mereció la pena, a lo que Luca responde: «No lo sé, pregúntame mañana». Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores: ¿Quieres invertir como Amancio? ¿Replicar la cartera de Florentino? Hasta hace poco la inversión en private equity estaba reservada para los altos patrimonios, pero con Crescenta, la primera gestora digital de capital privado, por fin podrás acceder también tú a todos esos fondos. A golpe de clic y con una inversión a partir de 10.000 euros, te daremos acceso a los fondos en los que llevan invirtiendo los grandes inversores durante décadas: EQT, Cinven, Vitruvian y más. Invierte como y con los mejores en Crescenta.com y accede a fondos con rentabilidades esperadas superiores al 15% anualizado. Rentabilidades pasadas no implican rentabilidades futuras. ⁠Consulta riesgos y condiciones⁠. Crescenta, la inversión relevante para tu futuro. A través de la reinterpretación y la dinamización de espacios singulares los chicos del Grupo Mercabañal están revolucionando la hostelería colaborativa en Valencia. A pesar de las modas, se resisten a olvidar aquello que fue bueno y útil, y disfrutan devolviendo vida a lugares, objetos y hábitos del pasado. Mercader, ubicado en las puertas del barrio del Cabañal, recupera con destreza y amabilidad un edificio con más de 100 años de historia, la antigua Tonelería Soler. Les conocí un poco por accidente en la última quedada Kapital Social en Valencia y me gustaría hoy felicitarles porque acaban de cumplir el año. ¡Mucha suerte en el camino! Índice: 2:12 Oportunidades laborales en Londres. 5:39 Make Albacete Great Again. 12:09 Montando el pollo. 22:41 Martínez duerme tranquilo sin ser propietario. 31:10 Canadian Pacific Railway. 38:35 La dificulta de ‘alocar' capital eficientemente. 46:31 El r > g de Piketty. 52:48 Capital humano. 1:00:34 El anillo como una multa. 1:04:36 Acceso a círculos exclusivos vía X. 1:09:09 Los códigos secretos de las élites. 1:13:11 The joy is in the playing. 1:22:21 I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member. 1:25:27 Debes superar la prueba para acceder a la información confidencial. Apuntes: Historias de Londres. Enric González. The bear. Christopher Storer. The economic benefits of social connections. Raj Chetty. El verdugo. Luis García Berlanga. Match point. Woody Allen. El capital. Karl Marx. El capital en el siglo XXI. Thomas Piketty. Piketty y capital en el siglo XXI. Xavier Sala i Martín. Phishing for phools. George Akerlof & Robert Shiller. El libro tibetano de los muertos. Padma Sambhava.

durée : 02:58:54 - Le 7/10 - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé, Sonia Devillers, Anne-Laure Sugier - Ce mercredi 12 juin 2024, les invités de la Matinale de France Inter sont : Hommage à Françoise Hardy / T. Piketty x D. Reynié x B. Teinturier / D.Djaïz x L.Strauch-Bonart / Jewel

Embark on an intellectual exploration with Ridhiamn Balaji, whose insights into the welfare state and socialism challenge the status quo. This episode traverses the European origins of welfare policies, the cautionary stances of Marxists towards state intervention, and the contentious use of the term 'welfare state' in American politics. Balaji, an economist with a deep understanding of Marxology, invites us to reconsider the implications of welfare systems from Bismarck's Germany to FDR's New Deal, while also deconstructing the nebulous concept of neoliberalism and its real-world applications.Unpack theories of capital with a discussion that dives into income inequality and the intricate web of wealth distribution. As we sift through the works of Piketty, Saez, and other luminaries, tax policies and their impact on inequality come to the forefront, offering a fresh lens on the persistent gaps in healthcare, racial wealth, and the overall social welfare landscape. Balaji challenges us to decode socialism's relationship with welfare policies, prompting a critical reevaluation of how we address societal disparities. The dialogue doesn't shy away from the hard-hitting topics, questioning the viability of the welfare state amidst capitalism's evolution and the internal contradictions within leftist movements.Concluding our journey, we navigate the ideological battlegrounds from Marxism to anarchism, scrutinizing their influences on global politics and the complex dynamics within the left. Balaji's upcoming publication in 'Capital and Class' is set to incite further debate, but until its release, listeners can access his thought-provoking work on ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Join us for this episode where we not only challenge your perspectives but also arm you with the intellectual tools to engage in the pursuit of a more equitable society. Support the Show.Crew:Host: C. Derick VarnAudio Producer: Paul Channel Strip ( @aufhebenkultur )Intro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @skepoetYou can find the additional streams on Youtube

Taloustieteen kansainvälisen supertähden Thomas Pikettyn uusi teos Pääoma ja ideologia pureutuu eriarvoisuutta ylläpitäviin talouden rakenteisiin sekä ideologioihin sääty-yhteiskunnista nykypäivään. Teoksessa Piketty kuvaa nykyistä talousjärjestelmää hyperkapitalistiseksi ja ennustaa, että edessä on romahdus, jos talousjärjestelmää ei muuteta tasa-arvoisemmaksi. – Jos emme onnistu muuttamaan nykyistä talousjärjestelmää perusteellisesti oikeudenmukaisemmaksi, kestävämmäksi ja tasa-arvoisemmaksi, niin kansainvälisesti kuin kansallisesti, muukalaisvihamielinen ”populismi” ja sen mahdollinen vaalimenestys voi nopeastikin johtaa vuosien 1990–2020 hyperkapitalistisen, digitalisoituneen globalisaatiokehityksen rajuun romahdukseen, kirjoittaa Piketty. Onko Pikettyn teos taloustieteellinen tutkimus vai romahdusta ennustava poliittinen pamfletti? Nousevatko Pikettyn johtopäätökset tutkimustuloksista ja talousfaktoista, vai poliittisesta näkemyksestä? Keskittyvätkö varallisuus, perinnöt ja pääomatulot nykymaailmassa yhtä eriarvoisesti kuin yli 100 vuotta sitten? Palataanko 2000-luvulla aikaan, jolloin palkkatyöllä vaurastuminen ei ollut mahdollista? Vieraana on Thomas Pikettyn Pääoma ja ideologia -teoksen suomentamisprojektista vastannut Tukholman yliopiston taloustieteen professori Markus Jäntti. Toimittajana on Tapio Pajunen.

Armut und Einkommensverteilung stehen im Mittelpunkt der 237. Folge von „bto – beyond the obvious – der Ökonomie-Podcast mit Dr. Daniel Stelter“.Zunächst werfen wir einen Blick nach Deutschland. Hier zeigen die Zahlen bei genauerem Hinschauen, dass die Armut in unserem Land keineswegs wächst. Doch nicht nur für Deutschland ist die These der zunehmenden Armut nicht korrekt. Auch weltweit können wir seit Jahren eine rückläufige Armut feststellen. Diese Tatsache hindert aber Ökonomen, Aktivisten und Politiker nicht, eine vermeintlich steigende Armut als Begründung für mehr staatliche Umverteilung heranzuziehen. Dem oft als Kronzeugen für diese Argumentation herangezogenen französischen Ökonomen Thomas Piketty wird schon länger vorgeworfen, Daten unvollständig und einseitig interpretiert zu haben. Neue Studien stützen den Verdacht und sprechen dafür, dass es Piketty nicht um die Fakten, sondern um die politisch gewünschte Nachricht geht. Im Expertengespräch äußert sich der Wirtschaftshistoriker und Ökonomieprofessor Dr. Vincent Geloso von der George Mason University, Fairfax/Virginia, USA.HörerserviceHier finden Sie die NBER Studie zur weltweiten Armut.Hier finden Sie das Buch von Dr. Daniel Stelter zu den Thesen Thomas Pikettys.Hier finden Sie die Studie über den Anstieg der Einkommensungleichheit in den USA. Neue Analysen, Kommentare und Einschätzungen zur Wirtschafts- und Finanzlage finden Sie unter www.think-bto.com. Sie erreichen die Redaktion unter podcast@think-bto.com. Wir freuen uns über Ihre Meinungen, Anregungen und Kritik.ShownotesHandelsblatt – Ein exklusives Angebot für alle „bto – beyond the obvious – featured by Handelsblatt”-Hörer*innen: Testen Sie Handelsblatt Premium 4 Wochen lang für 1 Euro und bleiben Sie zur aktuellen Wirtschafts- und Finanzlage informiert. Mehr erfahren Sie unter: https://handelsblatt.com/mehrperspektiven Werbepartner – Informationen zu den Angeboten unserer aktuellen Werbepartner finden Sie hier. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"Most lawyers, most actors, most soldiers and sailors, most athletes, most doctors, and most diplomats feel a certain solidarity in the face of outsiders, and, in spite of other differences, they share fragments of a common ethic in their working life, and a kind of moral complicity." – Stuart Hampshire, Justice is Conflict. There are many more examples of professional solidarity, however fragmented and tentative, sharing the link of a common ethic that helps make systems, and the analysis of them, possible in the larger political economy. Writing from a law professor's vantage point, Katharina Pistor, in her new book, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019) explains how even though law is a social good it has been harnessed as a private commodity over time that creates private wealth, and plays a significant role in the increasing disparity of financial outcomes. As she points out in this interview, and her chapter ‘Masters of the Code', it is ‘critical to have lawyers in the room', and they clearly have the lead role in her well-researched and nuanced thesis centered on the decentralized institution of private law. Professor Pistor builds on Rudden's ‘feudal calculus' providing the long view of legal systems in maintaining and creating wealth and draws on historical analogies including the enclosure movements as she interweaves her analysis of capital asset creation with a broader critique of professional and institutional agency. Polanyi and Piketty figure into Pistor's analysis among many others, as does the help of the state's coercive backing as she draws on the breadth of her own governance research and analysis of the collapsed socialist regimes in the 1990s, and a research pivot toward western market economies following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Professor Pistor is a comparative scholar with a keen interdisciplinary eye for the relationship between law, values, and markets, dovetailing larger concepts with detailed descriptions of the coding of ‘stocks, bonds, ideas, and even expectations—assets that exist only in law.' All of which informs her inquiry into why some legal systems have been more accommodating to capital's coding cravings and others less so, as she describes the process by which capital is created. She moves beyond legal realism's less granular critiques, and as reviewers such as Samuel Moyn have suggested – this book ‘deserves to be the essential text of any movement today that concerns itself with law and political economy'. Katharina Pistor is the Edwin B. Parker Professor of Comparative Law, and the Director of the Center on Global Legal Transformation at Columbia Law School. Keith Krueger lectures at the SHU-UTS Business School in Shanghai. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

"Most lawyers, most actors, most soldiers and sailors, most athletes, most doctors, and most diplomats feel a certain solidarity in the face of outsiders, and, in spite of other differences, they share fragments of a common ethic in their working life, and a kind of moral complicity." – Stuart Hampshire, Justice is Conflict. There are many more examples of professional solidarity, however fragmented and tentative, sharing the link of a common ethic that helps make systems, and the analysis of them, possible in the larger political economy. Writing from a law professor's vantage point, Katharina Pistor, in her new book, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019) explains how even though law is a social good it has been harnessed as a private commodity over time that creates private wealth, and plays a significant role in the increasing disparity of financial outcomes. As she points out in this interview, and her chapter ‘Masters of the Code', it is ‘critical to have lawyers in the room', and they clearly have the lead role in her well-researched and nuanced thesis centered on the decentralized institution of private law. Professor Pistor builds on Rudden's ‘feudal calculus' providing the long view of legal systems in maintaining and creating wealth and draws on historical analogies including the enclosure movements as she interweaves her analysis of capital asset creation with a broader critique of professional and institutional agency. Polanyi and Piketty figure into Pistor's analysis among many others, as does the help of the state's coercive backing as she draws on the breadth of her own governance research and analysis of the collapsed socialist regimes in the 1990s, and a research pivot toward western market economies following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Professor Pistor is a comparative scholar with a keen interdisciplinary eye for the relationship between law, values, and markets, dovetailing larger concepts with detailed descriptions of the coding of ‘stocks, bonds, ideas, and even expectations—assets that exist only in law.' All of which informs her inquiry into why some legal systems have been more accommodating to capital's coding cravings and others less so, as she describes the process by which capital is created. She moves beyond legal realism's less granular critiques, and as reviewers such as Samuel Moyn have suggested – this book ‘deserves to be the essential text of any movement today that concerns itself with law and political economy'. Katharina Pistor is the Edwin B. Parker Professor of Comparative Law, and the Director of the Center on Global Legal Transformation at Columbia Law School. Keith Krueger lectures at the SHU-UTS Business School in Shanghai. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

"Most lawyers, most actors, most soldiers and sailors, most athletes, most doctors, and most diplomats feel a certain solidarity in the face of outsiders, and, in spite of other differences, they share fragments of a common ethic in their working life, and a kind of moral complicity." – Stuart Hampshire, Justice is Conflict. There are many more examples of professional solidarity, however fragmented and tentative, sharing the link of a common ethic that helps make systems, and the analysis of them, possible in the larger political economy. Writing from a law professor's vantage point, Katharina Pistor, in her new book, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019) explains how even though law is a social good it has been harnessed as a private commodity over time that creates private wealth, and plays a significant role in the increasing disparity of financial outcomes. As she points out in this interview, and her chapter ‘Masters of the Code', it is ‘critical to have lawyers in the room', and they clearly have the lead role in her well-researched and nuanced thesis centered on the decentralized institution of private law. Professor Pistor builds on Rudden's ‘feudal calculus' providing the long view of legal systems in maintaining and creating wealth and draws on historical analogies including the enclosure movements as she interweaves her analysis of capital asset creation with a broader critique of professional and institutional agency. Polanyi and Piketty figure into Pistor's analysis among many others, as does the help of the state's coercive backing as she draws on the breadth of her own governance research and analysis of the collapsed socialist regimes in the 1990s, and a research pivot toward western market economies following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Professor Pistor is a comparative scholar with a keen interdisciplinary eye for the relationship between law, values, and markets, dovetailing larger concepts with detailed descriptions of the coding of ‘stocks, bonds, ideas, and even expectations—assets that exist only in law.' All of which informs her inquiry into why some legal systems have been more accommodating to capital's coding cravings and others less so, as she describes the process by which capital is created. She moves beyond legal realism's less granular critiques, and as reviewers such as Samuel Moyn have suggested – this book ‘deserves to be the essential text of any movement today that concerns itself with law and political economy'. Katharina Pistor is the Edwin B. Parker Professor of Comparative Law, and the Director of the Center on Global Legal Transformation at Columbia Law School. Keith Krueger lectures at the SHU-UTS Business School in Shanghai. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

"Most lawyers, most actors, most soldiers and sailors, most athletes, most doctors, and most diplomats feel a certain solidarity in the face of outsiders, and, in spite of other differences, they share fragments of a common ethic in their working life, and a kind of moral complicity." – Stuart Hampshire, Justice is Conflict. There are many more examples of professional solidarity, however fragmented and tentative, sharing the link of a common ethic that helps make systems, and the analysis of them, possible in the larger political economy. Writing from a law professor's vantage point, Katharina Pistor, in her new book, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019) explains how even though law is a social good it has been harnessed as a private commodity over time that creates private wealth, and plays a significant role in the increasing disparity of financial outcomes. As she points out in this interview, and her chapter ‘Masters of the Code', it is ‘critical to have lawyers in the room', and they clearly have the lead role in her well-researched and nuanced thesis centered on the decentralized institution of private law. Professor Pistor builds on Rudden's ‘feudal calculus' providing the long view of legal systems in maintaining and creating wealth and draws on historical analogies including the enclosure movements as she interweaves her analysis of capital asset creation with a broader critique of professional and institutional agency. Polanyi and Piketty figure into Pistor's analysis among many others, as does the help of the state's coercive backing as she draws on the breadth of her own governance research and analysis of the collapsed socialist regimes in the 1990s, and a research pivot toward western market economies following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Professor Pistor is a comparative scholar with a keen interdisciplinary eye for the relationship between law, values, and markets, dovetailing larger concepts with detailed descriptions of the coding of ‘stocks, bonds, ideas, and even expectations—assets that exist only in law.' All of which informs her inquiry into why some legal systems have been more accommodating to capital's coding cravings and others less so, as she describes the process by which capital is created. She moves beyond legal realism's less granular critiques, and as reviewers such as Samuel Moyn have suggested – this book ‘deserves to be the essential text of any movement today that concerns itself with law and political economy'. Katharina Pistor is the Edwin B. Parker Professor of Comparative Law, and the Director of the Center on Global Legal Transformation at Columbia Law School. Keith Krueger lectures at the SHU-UTS Business School in Shanghai.

"Most lawyers, most actors, most soldiers and sailors, most athletes, most doctors, and most diplomats feel a certain solidarity in the face of outsiders, and, in spite of other differences, they share fragments of a common ethic in their working life, and a kind of moral complicity." – Stuart Hampshire, Justice is Conflict. There are many more examples of professional solidarity, however fragmented and tentative, sharing the link of a common ethic that helps make systems, and the analysis of them, possible in the larger political economy. Writing from a law professor's vantage point, Katharina Pistor, in her new book, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019) explains how even though law is a social good it has been harnessed as a private commodity over time that creates private wealth, and plays a significant role in the increasing disparity of financial outcomes. As she points out in this interview, and her chapter ‘Masters of the Code', it is ‘critical to have lawyers in the room', and they clearly have the lead role in her well-researched and nuanced thesis centered on the decentralized institution of private law. Professor Pistor builds on Rudden's ‘feudal calculus' providing the long view of legal systems in maintaining and creating wealth and draws on historical analogies including the enclosure movements as she interweaves her analysis of capital asset creation with a broader critique of professional and institutional agency. Polanyi and Piketty figure into Pistor's analysis among many others, as does the help of the state's coercive backing as she draws on the breadth of her own governance research and analysis of the collapsed socialist regimes in the 1990s, and a research pivot toward western market economies following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Professor Pistor is a comparative scholar with a keen interdisciplinary eye for the relationship between law, values, and markets, dovetailing larger concepts with detailed descriptions of the coding of ‘stocks, bonds, ideas, and even expectations—assets that exist only in law.' All of which informs her inquiry into why some legal systems have been more accommodating to capital's coding cravings and others less so, as she describes the process by which capital is created. She moves beyond legal realism's less granular critiques, and as reviewers such as Samuel Moyn have suggested – this book ‘deserves to be the essential text of any movement today that concerns itself with law and political economy'. Katharina Pistor is the Edwin B. Parker Professor of Comparative Law, and the Director of the Center on Global Legal Transformation at Columbia Law School. Keith Krueger lectures at the SHU-UTS Business School in Shanghai. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

"Most lawyers, most actors, most soldiers and sailors, most athletes, most doctors, and most diplomats feel a certain solidarity in the face of outsiders, and, in spite of other differences, they share fragments of a common ethic in their working life, and a kind of moral complicity." – Stuart Hampshire, Justice is Conflict. There are many more examples of professional solidarity, however fragmented and tentative, sharing the link of a common ethic that helps make systems, and the analysis of them, possible in the larger political economy. Writing from a law professor's vantage point, Katharina Pistor, in her new book, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019) explains how even though law is a social good it has been harnessed as a private commodity over time that creates private wealth, and plays a significant role in the increasing disparity of financial outcomes. As she points out in this interview, and her chapter ‘Masters of the Code', it is ‘critical to have lawyers in the room', and they clearly have the lead role in her well-researched and nuanced thesis centered on the decentralized institution of private law. Professor Pistor builds on Rudden's ‘feudal calculus' providing the long view of legal systems in maintaining and creating wealth and draws on historical analogies including the enclosure movements as she interweaves her analysis of capital asset creation with a broader critique of professional and institutional agency. Polanyi and Piketty figure into Pistor's analysis among many others, as does the help of the state's coercive backing as she draws on the breadth of her own governance research and analysis of the collapsed socialist regimes in the 1990s, and a research pivot toward western market economies following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Professor Pistor is a comparative scholar with a keen interdisciplinary eye for the relationship between law, values, and markets, dovetailing larger concepts with detailed descriptions of the coding of ‘stocks, bonds, ideas, and even expectations—assets that exist only in law.' All of which informs her inquiry into why some legal systems have been more accommodating to capital's coding cravings and others less so, as she describes the process by which capital is created. She moves beyond legal realism's less granular critiques, and as reviewers such as Samuel Moyn have suggested – this book ‘deserves to be the essential text of any movement today that concerns itself with law and political economy'. Katharina Pistor is the Edwin B. Parker Professor of Comparative Law, and the Director of the Center on Global Legal Transformation at Columbia Law School. Keith Krueger lectures at the SHU-UTS Business School in Shanghai. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

"Most lawyers, most actors, most soldiers and sailors, most athletes, most doctors, and most diplomats feel a certain solidarity in the face of outsiders, and, in spite of other differences, they share fragments of a common ethic in their working life, and a kind of moral complicity." – Stuart Hampshire, Justice is Conflict. There are many more examples of professional solidarity, however fragmented and tentative, sharing the link of a common ethic that helps make systems, and the analysis of them, possible in the larger political economy. Writing from a law professor's vantage point, Katharina Pistor, in her new book, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019) explains how even though law is a social good it has been harnessed as a private commodity over time that creates private wealth, and plays a significant role in the increasing disparity of financial outcomes. As she points out in this interview, and her chapter ‘Masters of the Code', it is ‘critical to have lawyers in the room', and they clearly have the lead role in her well-researched and nuanced thesis centered on the decentralized institution of private law. Professor Pistor builds on Rudden's ‘feudal calculus' providing the long view of legal systems in maintaining and creating wealth and draws on historical analogies including the enclosure movements as she interweaves her analysis of capital asset creation with a broader critique of professional and institutional agency. Polanyi and Piketty figure into Pistor's analysis among many others, as does the help of the state's coercive backing as she draws on the breadth of her own governance research and analysis of the collapsed socialist regimes in the 1990s, and a research pivot toward western market economies following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Professor Pistor is a comparative scholar with a keen interdisciplinary eye for the relationship between law, values, and markets, dovetailing larger concepts with detailed descriptions of the coding of ‘stocks, bonds, ideas, and even expectations—assets that exist only in law.' All of which informs her inquiry into why some legal systems have been more accommodating to capital's coding cravings and others less so, as she describes the process by which capital is created. She moves beyond legal realism's less granular critiques, and as reviewers such as Samuel Moyn have suggested – this book ‘deserves to be the essential text of any movement today that concerns itself with law and political economy'. Katharina Pistor is the Edwin B. Parker Professor of Comparative Law, and the Director of the Center on Global Legal Transformation at Columbia Law School. Keith Krueger lectures at the SHU-UTS Business School in Shanghai. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance

Die Einführung eines Grunderbes für junge Menschen wird seit einer Weile vielfach diskutiert und findet verschiedene Befürworter: Die liberale Wirtschaftsweise Monika Schnitzer kann sich ein solches Konzept durchaus vorstellen, der Star-Ökonom Thomas Piketty jongliert mit der Summe von 120.000 Dollar zum 18. Lebensjahr, und die Jusos fordern ein Grunderbe in Höhe von 60.000 Euro. DIW-Ökonom Stefan Bach rechnet ein Modell mit 20.000 Euro vor, meint damit aber vor allem ein Startkapital, das zweckgebunden eingesetzt werden soll für Unternehmensgründungen oder Fortbildungen. Was aber ist von dem Vorschlag, der durch eine Erhöhung der Erbschaftssteuer finanziert werden soll, eigentlich zu halten? Darüber sind sich Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt bisweilen uneins. Mehr dazu in der neuen Folge von „Wohlstand für Alle“! Quellen/Literatur: Stefan Bach: “Grunderbe und Vermögensteuern können die Vermögensungleichheit verringern”, in: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.831668.de/21-50.pdf. Nikolaos Gavalakis: “Gegen Ungleichheit: Starökonom Piketty fordert 120.000 Euro Erbschaft für alle”, in: https://vorwaerts.de/international/gegen-ungleichheit-starokonom-piketty-fordert-120000-euro-erbschaft-fur-alle. Lukas Scholle: “Das Grunderbe löst nicht das Grundproblem”, in: https://jacobin.de/artikel/grunderbe-ungleichheit-klassenverhaeltnis. WERBUNG: Den Jacobin-Podcast findet ihr unter: JACOBIN Podcast: www.jacobin.de/podcast Auf Spotify: www.jacobin.de/spotify Auf Apple Podcasts: www.jacobin.de/applepodcasts VERANSTALTUNGEN: Ole in Jena: https://www.kinoammarkt.de/de/programm/sonderveranstaltungen Mit Jean-Philippe Kindler in Hannover: https://www.reservix.de/tickets-kindler-stoesst-an-mit-wolfgang-m-schmitt-und-ole-nymoen-in-hannover-pavillon-hannover-am-9-2-2024/e2156329 Wolfgang in Saarbrücken: https://www.instagram.com/p/C1uAldZNUQr/?img_index=1 Wolfgang in Trier: https://www.instagram.com/p/C17AflWMOyJ/?img_index=1 Unsere Zusatzinhalte könnt ihr bei Steady und Patreon hören. Vielen Dank! Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about Ihr könnt uns unterstützen - herzlichen Dank! Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/oleundwolfgang Konto: Wolfgang M. Schmitt, Ole Nymoen Betreff: Wohlstand fuer Alle IBAN: DE67 5745 0120 0130 7996 12 BIC: MALADE51NWD Social Media: Instagram: Unser gemeinsamer Kanal: https://www.instagram.com/oleundwolfgang/ Ole: https://www.instagram.com/ole.nymoen/ Wolfgang: https://www.instagram.com/wolfgangmschmitt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@oleundwolfgang Twitter: Unser gemeinsamer Kanal: https://twitter.com/OleUndWolfgang Ole: twitter.com/nymoen_ole Wolfgang: twitter.com/SchmittJunior Die gesamte WfA-Literaturliste: https://wohlstand-fuer-alle.netlify.app

Jonah indulges in one of his favorite traditions in today's Remnant: kvetching about economics with Michael Strain, the American Enterprise Institute's director of economic policy studies. Their conversation offers a crash course in the history of economics as a social science, a guide to the myths of income inequality, and a few musings on what really caused the Great Depression. Plus, they explore perhaps the most important topic of all: TV shows you should watch instead of paying attention to your children this holiday season Show Notes: -Dr. Strain's page at AEI -Dr. Strain: “The Myth of the 1%” -Jonah: “Mr. Piketty's Big Book of Marxiness” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

durée : 02:58:57 - Le 7/10 - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé, Sonia Devillers, Anne-Laure Sugier - Au programme du 7/10 : Élisabeth Born invitée du Grand Entretien, Boris Vallaud, président du groupe PS à l'Assemblée, invitée du 7h50, un débat sur la crise politique avec Thomas Piketty, Françoise Fressoz et Jérôme Jaffré, l'écrivain Robert Bober et le journaliste Alix Vermande.

Chapter 1 Understand the idea behind Capital in the Twenty-First Century"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" is a book written by French economist Thomas Piketty. First published in 2013, it focuses on wealth and income inequality in countries around the world, particularly in the 21st century. Piketty analyzes historical data and presents a comprehensive study of the distribution of wealth and income over the past few centuries.The book's central argument is that capitalism inherently leads to wealth concentration, and that wealth inequality will continue to worsen unless there are specific policies in place to curb it. Piketty argues that when the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth, the wealthy accumulate wealth faster than the overall economy can grow, leading to an increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals.Piketty proposes a global wealth tax as a potential solution to the problem, advocating for progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth to ensure a more equitable society. His book sparked extensive debates and discussions around economic inequality and has been influential in shaping policy debates and discussions on wealth distribution.Chapter 2 Is Capital in the Twenty-First Century Worth the Hype?The book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty is highly regarded by many economists and scholars. It presents an in-depth analysis of wealth and income inequality, drawing on historical data and economic theories. It sparked a significant debate on the topic of inequality and has influenced policy discussions worldwide.However, it is important to note that the book is quite dense and can be challenging to read for individuals without a background in economics. It delves into statistical analysis and presents complex arguments, which may be overwhelming for some readers. Additionally, some critics have raised concerns about certain aspects of Piketty's theoretical assumptions.Ultimately, whether the book is considered good or not depends on one's interest in economics, inequality, and willingness to engage with complex academic literature.Chapter 3 Overview of Capital in the Twenty-First Century"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty is a groundbreaking book that explores the dynamics of wealth and inequality in capitalist societies. Piketty, a renowned economist, delves into the historical patterns of wealth accumulation and how they shape societies.The book begins by examining the concept of capital and how it influences income inequality. Piketty argues that high levels of inequality are inherent to capitalism since the rate of return on capital generally exceeds the rate of economic growth. This leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, which perpetuates inequality across generations.Piketty proceeds to present extensive data on the distribution of wealth and income over the past few centuries, focusing primarily on America, Europe, and Japan. He demonstrates that inequality significantly increased in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but declined temporarily following the World Wars. However, in recent decades, inequality has been rising again, with the wealthy capturing an ever-increasing share of national income.One of the key contributions of the book is Piketty's use of historical data to highlight long-term trends and propose future projections. He introduces the concept of the "central contradiction of capitalism," where the return on capital surpasses economic growth, leading to swelling wealth disparities....

durée : 02:58:52 - Le 7/10 - Les invités de la Matinale de France Inter ce mardi 21 novembre 2023 sont : Pierre-Louis Bras / Elie Barnavi / Thomas Piketty x Philippe Manière / Katell Quillévéré / Favé

Noah Smith and Erik Torenberg discuss the state of the economy, whether tech and the VC ecosystem are doing well or facing a 'rolling recession', and unpack assumptions about wealth in the United States. Make informed decision for high impact donations with GiveWell, which is offering Econ 102 listeners donation matching up to $100. To claim your match, go to givewell.org ➡️ pick “Podcast” enter Econ 102 at checkout. – Sponsors: GIVEWELL | DAFFY | NETSUITE Have you ever wondered where your donation could have the most impact? GiveWell has now spent over 15 years researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to the HIGHEST-IMPACT opportunities they've found in global health and poverty alleviation. Make informed decisions about high-impact giving. If you've never donated through GiveWell before, you can have your donation matched up to $100 before the end of the year, or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to givewell.org and pick “Podcast” and enter Econ 102 at checkout. Daffy is the most modern and accessible donor-advised fund, making it easier to put money aside for charity. You can make your tax-deductible contributions all at once or set aside a little each week or month. And you don't just have to donate cash, you can easily contribute stocks, ETFs, or crypto. Plus, you never have to track receipts from your donations again. It's free to get started and Econ 102 listeners get $25 towards the charity of their choice. Daffy is offering Econ 102 listeners a free $25 for the charity of their choice when they join Daffy https://www.daffy.org/econ102 NetSuite has 25 years of providing financial software for all your business needs. More than 36,000 businesses have already upgraded to NetSuite by Oracle, gaining visibility and control over their financials, inventory, HR, eCommerce, and more. If you're looking for an ERP platform head to NetSuite ✅ http://netsuite.com/102 and download your own customized KPI checklist. – Econ 102 is a part of the Turpentine podcast network. To learn more: www.turpentine.co – RECOMMENDED PODCAST: New Show: Age of Miracles Age of Miracles is a narrative show that explores the complex industries that will play an important role in creating an abundant future for humanity. Every season, host Packy McCormick brings in an expert cohost to go deep into the possibilities and challenges of making “sci-fi” dreams our reality in our lifetimes. The first season starts at the root of all progress and prosperity: unlocking 10x more clean and reliable energy by splitting and fusing atoms themselves—going nuclear. Episodes 1 and 2 drop October 27th Subscribe to the podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/ageofmiracles Listen on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@age-of-miracles/videos – RECOMMENDED PODCAST:  Every week investor and writer of the popular newsletter The Diff, Byrne Hobart, and co-host Erik Torenberg discuss today's major inflection points in technology, business, and markets – and help listeners build a diversified portfolio of trends and ideas for the future. Subscribe to “The Riff” with Byrne Hobart and Erik Torenberg: https://link.chtbl.com/theriff – X / TWITTER: @noahpinion (Noah) @eriktorenberg (Erik) – TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Episode Preview (01:05) The Rolling Recession? (03:55) When Are Venture Capitalists gonna get rich again? (06:15) Will rate cuts go down? (08:15) Factory Model of Venture Capital (10:20) Crypto's correlation to the markets (14:15) Sector specific shocks screwing the economy (16:50) Sponsors: GiveWell | Daffy (20:00) The temperature metaphor in economics (22:41) Regular Americans are getting richer (25:02) How accurate are the measurement of inequality statistics in terms of reflecting true inequality? (30:15) Why inequality might be good in economics (36:55) What mechanisms led to inequality going down (41:00) Skyrocketing prices and poor regulation of markets (47:00) Piketty's arguments on inequality

durée : 02:59:13 - Le 7/10 - Les invités de la Matinale de ce jeudi 26 octobre 2023 : Augustin de Romanet - Thierry Breton - Thomas Piketty x Jérôme Fourquet - Hélène Grimaud - Emy Gazeilles

durée : 00:58:53 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Tiphaine de Rocquigny - Qui vote pour qui, et pour quel programme politique ? Quels facteurs socio-économiques, mais aussi géographiques, influencent le choix des électeurs français depuis 1789 ? - invités : Julia Cagé Économiste, spécialiste de l'économie des médias; Thomas Piketty Economiste

durée : 02:59:09 - Le 7/10 - La refondation de l'école, l'histoire du conflit politique en France, une série consacrée à Bernard Tapie et le nouveau film de Catherine Breillat au menu du 7/10 du 6 septembre 2023.

durée : 00:10:22 - L'invité de 7h50 - par : Alexis Morel - Au lendemain de l'annonce de la mort de l'économiste Daniel Cohen, Thomas Piketty, économiste, professeur à l'école d'économie de Paris est l'invité de 7h50 pour évoquer le travail de son collègue.

Is Thomas Piketty the world's most famous economic historian ? A superstar enemy of plutocratic capitalism who wrote a pathbreaking bestseller, Capital in the 21st Century? Or simply a debonair and generous French intellectual happy to talk redistributive justice? Join this 2020 conversation with John and Adaner Usmani (star of RTB's episode 44: Racism as idea, Racism as Power Relation) to find out. Why did we invite him? John thinks nobody is better than Piketty at mapping and explaining the nature and origin of the glaring and growing inequality that everywhere defines wealth distribution in the 21st century—both between societies and within them. His recent magnum opus, Capital and Ideology. ask what sorts of stories societies (and individuals within those societies) tell themselves so as to tolerate such inequality—and the poverty and misery it produces. Or even to see that inequality as part of the natural order of things. Why did he accept our invitation? A mystery, but who are we to look a gift economist in the mouth? Mentioned in the Episode Philip Larkin, “Why aren't they screaming?” (from the poem “The Old Fools”) Bonus: Here is John's question about his favorite writer, the one Adaner teased him for not asking: “Mr. Piketty, you are interested in hinge points where people cease being captivated by one ideology and begin seeing differently (might one also say, begin being captivated by another ideology?) In 2014, Ursula le Guin said: ‘We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.‘ Can I ask how that resonates with your argument about the rapid changeability of economic paradigms–and moral paradigms for justifying inequality–in Capital and Ideology? “ Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Is Thomas Piketty the world's most famous economic historian ? A superstar enemy of plutocratic capitalism who wrote a pathbreaking bestseller, Capital in the 21st Century? Or simply a debonair and generous French intellectual happy to talk redistributive justice? Join this 2020 conversation with John and Adaner Usmani (star of RTB's episode 44: Racism as idea, Racism as Power Relation) to find out. Why did we invite him? John thinks nobody is better than Piketty at mapping and explaining the nature and origin of the glaring and growing inequality that everywhere defines wealth distribution in the 21st century—both between societies and within them. His recent magnum opus, Capital and Ideology. ask what sorts of stories societies (and individuals within those societies) tell themselves so as to tolerate such inequality—and the poverty and misery it produces. Or even to see that inequality as part of the natural order of things. Why did he accept our invitation? A mystery, but who are we to look a gift economist in the mouth? Mentioned in the Episode Philip Larkin, “Why aren't they screaming?” (from the poem “The Old Fools”) Bonus: Here is John's question about his favorite writer, the one Adaner teased him for not asking: “Mr. Piketty, you are interested in hinge points where people cease being captivated by one ideology and begin seeing differently (might one also say, begin being captivated by another ideology?) In 2014, Ursula le Guin said: ‘We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.‘ Can I ask how that resonates with your argument about the rapid changeability of economic paradigms–and moral paradigms for justifying inequality–in Capital and Ideology? “ Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is Thomas Piketty the world's most famous economic historian ? A superstar enemy of plutocratic capitalism who wrote a pathbreaking bestseller, Capital in the 21st Century? Or simply a debonair and generous French intellectual happy to talk redistributive justice? Join this 2020 conversation with John and Adaner Usmani (star of RTB's episode 44: Racism as idea, Racism as Power Relation) to find out. Why did we invite him? John thinks nobody is better than Piketty at mapping and explaining the nature and origin of the glaring and growing inequality that everywhere defines wealth distribution in the 21st century—both between societies and within them. His recent magnum opus, Capital and Ideology. ask what sorts of stories societies (and individuals within those societies) tell themselves so as to tolerate such inequality—and the poverty and misery it produces. Or even to see that inequality as part of the natural order of things. Why did he accept our invitation? A mystery, but who are we to look a gift economist in the mouth? Mentioned in the Episode Philip Larkin, “Why aren't they screaming?” (from the poem “The Old Fools”) Bonus: Here is John's question about his favorite writer, the one Adaner teased him for not asking: “Mr. Piketty, you are interested in hinge points where people cease being captivated by one ideology and begin seeing differently (might one also say, begin being captivated by another ideology?) In 2014, Ursula le Guin said: ‘We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.‘ Can I ask how that resonates with your argument about the rapid changeability of economic paradigms–and moral paradigms for justifying inequality–in Capital and Ideology? “ Read transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Bob first explains the synthetic control method and then critiques a newly published paper by Magness and Makovi employing the technique. M&M argue that were it not for the 1917 Russian revolution, Marx would today be a minor figure. Bob sharply disagrees.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The Magness & Makovi paper on Marx.RECEIPTS for Bob's claims.Their AIER summary post.Bob's paper with Phil on Piketty.John Ganz critique, 1 and 2. Phil's response to Ganz.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.

French economist Thomas Piketty is one of the leading intellectuals documenting inequality, with his 2013 book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” becoming widely read and cited. His new book, "A Brief History of Equality," is more optimistic: In it, Piketty documents how our world has become relatively more equal since the end of the 18th century. In this unedited conversation, Piketty talks to Bethany and Luigi about the lessons from this movement toward equality and where it could go next – especially regarding policy choices such as taxes, reparations, and redistribution toward more racial, democratic, and global equality. Among others, they discuss: Would people favor massive redistribution? What kind of institutions would be required to oversee markets? Can true progress be achieved without equality?

The French economist Thomas Piketty is arguably the world's greatest chronicler of economic inequality. For decades now, he has collected huge data sets documenting the share of income and wealth that has flowed to the top 1 percent. And the culmination of much of that work, his 2013 book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” quickly became one of the most widely read and cited economic texts in recent history.Piketty's new book, “A Brief History of Equality,” is perhaps his most optimistic work. In it, he chronicles the immense social progress that the U.S. and Europe have achieved over the past few centuries in the form of rising educational attainment, life expectancy and incomes. Of course, those societies still contain huge inequalities of wealth. But in Piketty's view, this outcome isn't an inevitability; it's the product of policy choices that we collectively make — and could choose to make differently. And to that end, Piketty proposes a truly radical policy agenda — a universal minimum inheritance of around $150,000 per person, worker control over the boards of corporations and “confiscatory” levels of wealth and income taxation — that he calls “participatory socialism.”So this conversation isn't just about the current state of inequality; it's about the kind of policies — and politics — it would take to solve that inequality. We discuss why wealth is a far more accurate indicator of social power than income, the quality of the historical data that Piketty's work relies on, why Piketty believes the welfare state — not capitalism itself — is the most important driver of human progress, why representative democracy hasn't led to more economic redistribution, whether equality is really the best metric to measure human progress in the first place, how Piketty would pay for his universal inheritance proposal, whether the levels of taxation he is proposing would stifle innovation and wreck the economy, why he believes it would be better for societies — and economic productivity — for workers to have a much larger say in how companies are governed, how Piketty thinks about the prospect of inflation and more.Mentioned:The Great Leveler by Walter Scheidel“Anne Applebaum on What Liberals Misunderstand About Authoritarianism” by The Ezra Klein ShowBook Recommendations:The Great Demarcation by Rafe BlaufarbThe Emergence of Globalism by Or RosenboimThe Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah ArendtWe're hiring a researcher! You can apply here or by visiting nytimes.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/NewsThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Jeff Geld; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski.

Photo:  2/2: #Markets: Piketty and the Billionaires. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst  https://www.hoover.org/research/plague-billionaires

Photo:  1/2: #Markets: Piketty and the Billionaires.   @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst  https://www.hoover.org/research/plague-billionaires

When it comes to the enormous reduction of income inequality during the 20th century, Thomas Piketty sees politics everywhere. In his new book, A Brief History of Equality, he argues the rising equality during the 19th and 20th centuries has its roots not in deterministic economic forces but in the movements to end aristocratic and colonial societies starting at the end of the 18th century. Drawing this line forward, Piketty also contends we must rectify past injustices before attempting to create new institutions. He joined Tyler to discuss just how egalitarian France actually is, the beginning of the end of aristocratic society, where he places himself within French intellectual history, why he's skeptical of data from before the late 18th century, how public education drives economic development, why Georgism isn't sufficient to address wealth inequality, the relationship between wealth and cultural capital, his proposal for a minimum inheritance, why he turned down the Legion of Honor, why France should give reparations to Haiti despite the logistical difficulties of doing so, his vision for European federalism, why more immigration won't be a panacea for inequality, his thoughts on Michel Houellebecq's Submission, and more. Full transcript Full video Email: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Follow Tyler on Twitter Follow Thomas on Twitter Like us on Facebook CWT on YouTube Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://go.mercatus.org/l/278272/2017-09-19/g4ms