Podcast appearances and mentions of Thomas Piketty

Question:What would have happened to Europe in the past two and a half centuries if it hadn't plundered the global south? What would have happened if Europeans had paid for the labour of Africans instead of stealing it? What would have happened if they had purchased cotton, tea, spices and other commodities at a price that reflected the labour used to produce it? Answer: Europe would be one of the poorer regions of the worldThomas Piketty, the world renowned economist and author of Capital in the 21st Century has produced a new study of the economic dynamics of 19th and 20th Century imperialism. You can access it here*****STOP PRESS*****I only ever talk about history on this podcast but I also have another life, yes, that of aspirant fantasy author and if that's your thing you can get a copy of my debut novel The Blood of Tharta, right here:Help the podcast to continue bringing you history each weekIf you enjoy the Explaining History podcast and its many years of content and would like to help the show continue, please consider supporting it in the following ways:If you want to go ad-free, you can take out a membership hereOrYou can support the podcast via Patreon hereOr you can just say some nice things about it here Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

高雄美術特區3-4房全新落成，《惟美術》輕軌C22站散步即到家，近鄰青海商圈，卡位明星學區，徜徉萬坪綠海。 住近美術館，擁抱優雅日常，盡現驕傲風範！美術東四路29號 07-553-3838 https://sofm.pse.is/7m4234 --

Tầm nhìn Kinh tế Đạo đức của Giáo hoàng Francis - Một Lời Kêu Gọi Cải Cách Hệ ThốngGiáo hoàng Francis không chỉ là một lãnh đạo tôn giáo mà còn là một nhà phê bình sắc sảo về hệ thống kinh tế toàn cầu. Với góc nhìn từ Mỹ Latinh, ngài chỉ trích chủ nghĩa tư bản hiện đại vì đã đánh mất la bàn đạo đức, đặt lợi nhuận trên con người và dẫn đến bất bình đẳng, nghèo đói, cùng suy thoái môi trường. Thay vì bác bỏ hoàn toàn chủ nghĩa tư bản, ngài kêu gọi tái định hướng kinh tế dựa trên nền tảng đạo đức, nhấn mạnh rằng kinh tế không chỉ là kỹ thuật mà là một hệ thống phản ánh các giá trị nhân văn.Giáo hoàng Francis gọi hệ thống kinh tế hiện nay là “một nền kinh tế loại trừ và bất bình đẳng” – một hệ thống “giết chết” khi phục vụ lợi ích của một số ít thay vì cộng đồng. Từ trải nghiệm ở Argentina, ngài chứng kiến sự tàn khốc của bất công kinh tế: cộng đồng tan rã, bất bình đẳng gia tăng, và các tệ nạn xã hội lan rộng. Ngài chỉ trích sự tập trung của cải, cho rằng thị trường, thay vì tạo ra giá trị chung, đang trở thành công cụ bóc lột. Quan điểm này thách thức các giả định tân cổ điển về tính tự điều chỉnh của thị trường, khẳng định rằng nghèo đói và bất công là “tội lỗi cấu trúc” cần được sửa chữa.Trong thông điệp Laudato Si', Giáo hoàng Francis gắn kết kinh tế với sinh thái, coi suy thoái môi trường là hệ quả tất yếu của một nền kinh tế biến thiên nhiên thành hàng hóa và bỏ rơi người nghèo. Ngài gọi Trái Đất là “người nghèo bị ngược đãi nhất”, nhấn mạnh rằng kinh tế và sinh thái là hai mặt của trách nhiệm đạo đức. Cách tiếp cận này không chỉ phê phán mô hình tăng trưởng vô hạn mà còn kêu gọi một nền kinh tế tôn trọng cả con người lẫn thiên nhiên.Giáo hoàng Francis không dừng lại ở phê bình mà đưa ra tầm nhìn về một nền kinh tế dựa trên đoàn kết, công lý và quản lý sinh thái. Hội nghị Kinh Tế của Francesco năm 2020 là minh chứng cho nỗ lực này, khuyến khích các nhà kinh tế đặt câu hỏi cơ bản: “Chúng ta muốn loại thị trường nào, và vì ai?”. Ngài kêu gọi tái thiết hệ thống kinh tế từ nền tảng đạo đức, thay vì chỉ sửa chữa bề mặt. Các đề xuất cụ thể bao gồm từ bỏ độc quyền sở hữu trí tuệ trong y tế (như vắc-xin COVID-19) và xóa nợ cho các nước đang phát triển, xem đó là vấn đề công lý hơn là từ thiện.Tầm nhìn của Giáo hoàng Francis không phải là một sáng tạo riêng lẻ mà nằm trong truyền thống tư tưởng kinh tế nhân văn. Ngài chia sẻ quan điểm với các nhà kinh tế như Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, và Thomas Piketty, những người nhấn mạnh công lý, năng lực con người, và quản trị dân chủ trong kinh tế. Ngay cả Adam Smith, với lời cảnh báo về sự đồng cảm và lòng tin, được ngài viện dẫn để nhắc nhở rằng kinh tế phải phục vụ lợi ích chung. Quan điểm này bác bỏ ý tưởng về kinh tế “trung lập giá trị”, khẳng định mọi chính sách đều phản ánh một hệ giá trị đạo đức.Là tiếng nói cho Thế giới phía Nam, Giáo hoàng Francis đã trở thành một lực lượng đạo đức toàn cầu, nhắc nhở thế giới rằng kinh tế tồn tại để phục vụ con người và phẩm giá. Di sản của ngài nằm ở việc đặt nền móng cho một hệ thống tài chính quốc tế công bằng hơn, thông qua các sáng kiến như Ủy ban Năm Thánh. Trong bối cảnh khủng hoảng toàn cầu, thông điệp của ngài mang tính cấp bách: kinh tế cần được “cứu chuộc” bằng cách đặt công lý, đoàn kết và trách nhiệm sinh thái làm trung tâm. Thách thức đặt ra là liệu thế giới có sẵn sàng đáp ứng lời kêu gọi tái định hình này hay không.Tầm nhìn kinh tế đạo đức của Giáo hoàng Francis là một lời cảnh tỉnh mạnh mẽ, thách thức các nhà kinh tế và lãnh đạo toàn cầu nhìn nhận lại mục đích của kinh tế. Bằng cách kết nối bất công kinh tế, suy thoái môi trường và trách nhiệm đạo đức, ngài không chỉ phê phán mà còn truyền cảm hứng cho một mô hình kinh tế nhân văn hơn. Trong một thế giới đối mặt với bất bình đẳng và biến đổi khí hậu, thông điệp của ngài không chỉ là lý thuyết mà là kim chỉ nam cho hành động, hướng tới một tương lai công bằng và bền vững. To hear more, visit changngocgia.substack.com

La gauche à deux ans de la prochaine présidentielle et un nom qui revient sur toutes les lèvres et qui s'affiche à la Une des magazines, celui de Jean-Luc MÉLENCHON… Meilleur espoir de son camp en 2027 selon ses partisans, nouveau diable de la République pour ses détracteurs, qui voient en lui le principal obstacle au retour de la gauche au pouvoir… Alors l'avenir de la gauche passe-t-il par le Mélenchonisme ou par la mise en place d'un cordon sanitaire avec le leader de LFI ?On en débat ce mercredi 7 mai avec nos invités : ▶︎ Julia CAGÉ, économiste et professeure à Sciences Po Paris. Co-autrice avec Thomas Piketty d'histoire du conflit politique" (09/2023, éditions du Seuil).▶︎ Astrid DE VILLAINES, Journaliste, productrice de l'émission « Sens politique » sur France Culture▶︎ Eve SZEFTEL, Directrice de la rédaction de Marianne▶︎ Thomas LEGRAND, Journaliste et éditorialiste politique Libération▶︎ Usul, journaliste et vidéaste▶︎ Jean-Pierre MIGNARD Avocat au Barreau de Paris, membre du PS

Marc Cantavella es asesor fiscal. Empezó su carrera como asalariado pero a raíz de una conversación con amigos identificó un side project que merecía la pena explorar. Ahora desde su firma Relocate&Save trabaja para proteger el capital de sus clientes. Israel Kirzner definió al empresario como aquel que está alerta a las oportunidades que ofrece el mercado. Un empresario, desde la perspectiva austríaca de la economía, mantiene los ojos abiertos en un mundo en constante cambio. Eso es lo que hizo Marc.Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores:⁠⁠UTAMED⁠⁠. La universidad online del siglo XXI⁠⁠.UTAMED, la universidad oficial y online de la Fundación Unicaja, nace para romper las barreras que durante décadas han limitado el acceso a la educación y la cultura. Con exámenes 100 % online y financiación sin intereses, ofrecemos una formación accesible, flexible y comprometida con el presente. Porque hoy ya no basta con obtener un título: en UTAMED te preparamos para trabajar desde el primer año. Lo hacemos junto a la empresa, adaptando los contenidos académicos a sus demandas reales, para que nuestros estudiantes adquieran las competencias más valoradas en el mercado laboral. Por ser oyente de este podcast, tienes un descuento del 30% en todo el catálogo de grados y másteres, oficiales y propios.La casa ESE⁠. ¿Cómo quieres vivir?Aquí de vuelta los pesaos queridos amigos de La casa ESE. Buscando la forma de seguir inventando cosas ya inventadas hemos creado mapadecasas.com, allí tendréis la oportunidad de encontrar, más que vuestra futura casa, vuestra futura vida. Sí, es muy ambicioso. En Madrid, por ejemplo, vamos a crear un conjunto residencial donde además de habitar, podamos llevar un poquito del Mediterráneo moral. No sólo una casa, sino un lugar que tenga zonas verdes, espacios comunitarios y hasta un edificio que pueda hacer las veces de coworking entre otras cosas. A 30 minutos de Madrid y buscando gente afín al mundo tecnológico, al emprendimiento, al marketing y a la cultura. Visita la propuesta de Distrito ESE.Patrocina Kapital. Toda la información en este link.Índice:2:30 Networking en Andorra.4:55 Emprender es de pijos.11:44 A taste of freedom can make you unemployable.19:49 Spanish pickpockets operating in this area.30:03 La curva de Laffer.44:13 ¿Qué hay detrás del capital?51:17 Anticipando el futuro exit tax.1:00:16 Aranceles de Trump.1:08:21 ¿Soy suficiente rico para marcharme?1:11:53 Andorra para los andorranos.1:19:13 Llamémosle competencia, no dumping fiscal.1:26:54 Mil historias de mil clientes.1:36:13 La paradoja del inmigrante clarividente.1:50:17 Millonarios por herencia.Apuntes:El individuo soberano. William Rees-Mogg & James Dale Davison.El capital en siglo XXI. Thomas Piketty.Incerto. Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Was kann man gegen wachsende soziale Ungleichheit tun? Diese Frage erörtern der französische Ökonom Thomas Piketty und der amerikanische Philosoph Michel Sandel in dem Buch „Die Kämpfe der Zukunft. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit im 21. Jahrhundert.“ Rezension von Jochen Rack 

Tout et son contraire… Le Wall Street Journal est plutôt dubitatif, pour ne pas dire plus, après un week-end qu'il qualifie de « déroutant » : un week-end qui apporte, poursuit le journal, « de nouveaux éclairages sur la nature arbitraire de la politique commerciale de M. Trump. Vendredi en fin de journée, son propre service des douanes et de la protection des frontières publiait un avis énumérant les produits exemptés des droits de douane de 145% qui frappent la Chine. À savoir, les smartphones, les ordinateurs portables, ou encore les disques durs. Samedi, la presse mondiale rapportait l'information sans que la Maison Blanche ne bronche. » Mais patatras… « Hier matin (dimanche NDLR), pointe le Wall Street Journal, le secrétaire au commerce Howard Lutnick affirmait que les droits de douane sur les produits électroniques (en provenance de Chine) augmenteraient à nouveau à l'avenir, sans toutefois donner de détails. Et dans l'après-midi, Donald Trump intervenait pour dire que “personne n'était tiré d'affaire“ pour les balances commerciales injustes et surtout pas la Chine qui “nous traite mal !“ Avant de rajouter : aucune “exception“ sur les droits de douane n'a été annoncée vendredi. »Et le Wall Street Journal de s'interroger : « que s'est-il donc passé et quelle est la véritable politique ? Qui le sait ? » En tout cas, soupire le quotidien économique : « bienvenue dans la nouvelle économie des droits de douane, où l'on continue de payer des impôts onéreux, d'endurer des réglementations pénalisantes et où on doit désormais naviguer sur le champ de mines politique des tarifs douaniers arbitraires. »Perte de contrôle ?« Trump a-t-il une stratégie ou improvise-t-il ? », s'interroge en écho le Washington Post. « Alors que Donald Trump approche des 100 jours de son second mandat, les trois premiers mois ont été marqués par des erreurs, des excès et par l'orgueil démesuré d'une équipe qui interprète une courte victoire électorale comme un blanc-seing. »En fait, pointe encore le Washington Post, « Trump s'est présenté comme un chef d'entreprise avisé capable de redresser l'économie. De nombreux électeurs l'ont cru. Sa plus grande promesse économique était de faire baisser les prix. Résultat : ce qui a baissé, ce sont les marchés financiers et le moral des consommateurs, qui craignent une récession. »Dans une tribune publiée par Le Monde à Paris, l'économiste Thomas Piketty affirme que « si les trumpistes mènent une politique aussi brutale et désespérée, c'est parce qu'ils ne savent pas comment réagir face à l'affaiblissement économique du pays. Exprimé en parité de pouvoir d'achat, c'est-à-dire en volume réel de biens, de services et d'équipements produits chaque année, le PIB de la Chine a dépassé celui des États-Unis en 2016. Il est actuellement plus de 30 % plus élevé et atteindra le double du PIB états-unien d'ici à 2035. La réalité est que les États-Unis sont en train de perdre le contrôle du monde. (…) La crise actuelle est nouvelle, poursuit Thomas Piketty, car elle met en cause le cœur même de la puissance économique, financière et politique du pays, qui apparaît comme déboussolé, gouverné par un chef instable et erratique, sans aucune force de rappel démocratique. »La disparition de Mario Vargas LlosaÀ la Une également, la mort hier de l'écrivain Mario Vargas Llosa, à l'âge de 89 ans…« Un géant de la littérature universelle », s'exclame El Pais à Madrid. « Romancier, essayiste, polémiste, chroniqueur et universitaire, Vargas Llosa restera dans l'histoire comme un conteur extraordinaire et un intellectuel influent de la vieille école, c'est-à-dire d'avant les réseaux sociaux. »« Monument de la littérature sud-américaine, prix Nobel 2010 et figure majeure du monde intellectuel hispanique, l'écrivain péruvien était un virtuose de la narration et du réalisme », commente Libération à Paris.« Un prince de l'esprit contemporain », renchérit la Nación à Buenos Aires.« Adieu à l'écrivain de l'individu et du pouvoir », lance la Repubblica à Rome. En effet, précise le journal, « la réflexion sur la nature du pouvoir, sur la faiblesse et la noblesse de l'être humain est au cœur de son œuvre (…). Vargas Llosa n'a jamais perdu la foi dans la capacité séditieuse du récit à créer un monde alternatif, sans frontières de langue, de culture et de religion, dans lequel on trouve refuge contre l'adversité ou la barbarie, pour dissiper le chaos, pour éterniser la beauté d'un instant. »Bref, un écrivain à lire ou à relire par les temps qui courent.

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.

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

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.

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read 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

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read 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

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here.

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

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.

Tschechne, Martin www.deutschlandfunk.de, Büchermarkt

Tschechne, Martin www.deutschlandfunk.de, Andruck - Das Magazin für Politische Literatur

How is market signaling tied to economic growth, and what will the introduction of AI do to the wave of economic development in the US and abroad? Will other surging economies surpass the United States as dynamics continue to change?Michael Spence is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, also the author of a number of books, including The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World and most recently, Permacrisis: A Plan to Fix a Fractured World.Greg and Michael discuss Michael's ideas on economic growth and signaling, exploring the early days of applied micro theory with key figures like Ken Arrow and Tom Schelling. They also cover the evolution of global economic policy, particularly the challenges and opportunities in an increasingly fragmented world. Michael shares insights from his books and emphasizes the importance of cognitive diversity in understanding and addressing global socio-economic issues.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Show Links:Recommended Resources:Kenneth ArrowRichard ZeckhauserThomas SchellingThe Market for LemonsPooling EquilibriumJohn Maynard SmithErving GoffmanEdward LazearWashington ConsensusReport: EU competitiveness: Looking aheadGuest Profile:Professional Profile at the Hoover InstitutionProfile for the Council on Foreign RelationsNobel Prize ProfileWikipedia PageHis Work:Permacrisis: A Plan to Fix a Fractured WorldThe Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed WorldEpisode Quotes:The scarcity of time as a signal18:56: It turns out time is an incredibly important signal. In just an ordinary interaction, if somebody's willing to spend time with you, we always take this for granted because it's part of life, right? If they won't spend time with you, that sends a different signal. I mean, in the internet era, I think most people understand that the scarcest commodity is attention, not money, not other things. And so, the battle for people's attention, or time, or whatever you want to, these are slightly different, but it's pretty important. So, it's all there, but it did have origins well before the signaling and screening work.Signaling model has to be visible11:11: The core of the signaling model is that it has to be visible. It has to cost something; otherwise, everybody would do it. And the costs have to be negatively correlated with the quality; otherwise, it won't survive in equilibrium.Navigating crises, inequality, and global interdependence49:19: The way I approach that is try to look at the big challenges: maintaining some reasonable level of global sort of interdependence with the benefits that it brings without getting into big trouble, dealing with the various dimensions of the sustainability agenda, and dealing with sort of stunningly high levels of inequality, especially in wealth. Thomas Piketty's right; there's long cycles in these things, and maybe you just have to live through them. But, the last thing I did is look at the St. Louis Fed, which publishes pretty detailed data on American household net worth, assets, liabilities, and net worth. The top 10 percent has two-thirds of the net worth. The bottom 50 percent has 3%. Yeah. Sort of wonder, you know, can you really run a society that looks like that indefinitely, or if not, what's going to break and cause it to change?

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

Chaque matin dans son édito, Judith Waintraub revient sur l'actualité politique du jour.

"Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

"Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

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. In this episode, Vincent Brown (History professor at Harvard) last spoke with us about his own work on Caribbean slave revolts; his many other well-known projects include the recent PBS series The Bigger Picture. What exactly happened and will happen? Well, Vince has sympathy for Bernie Sanders Boston Globe op-ed about the Democrat's neglect of working-class and Gabriel Wynant's "Exit Right" abut the need to remake left-wing politics. He also takes seriously Thomas Piketty's theory of the rise of "Brahmin Left". That's a topic explored in the Recall This Book series on the Brahmin left ( Jan-Werner Muller, Matthew Karp and Thomas Piketty). Any hopeful note to end on? Well, bad government breeds righteous opposition. From Ronald Reagan we got...Minor Threat and the Bad Brains. Tune in tomorrow to hear John speak with David Cunningham; the previous conversation, already up on New Books Network, was with Mark Blyth. Listen and Read 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

In today's eipsode for 22nd November 2024, we explore economist Thomas Piketty's possible solution to tackle global inequality and the dilemma it brings with it. Speak to Ditto's advisors now, by clicking the link here - https://ditto.sh/9zoz41

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. In this episode, Vincent Brown (History professor at Harvard) last spoke with us about his own work on Caribbean slave revolts; his many other well-known projects include the recent PBS series The Bigger Picture. What exactly happened and will happen? Well, Vince has sympathy for Bernie Sanders Boston Globe op-ed about the Democrat's neglect of working-class and Gabriel Wynant's "Exit Right" abut the need to remake left-wing politics. He also takes seriously Thomas Piketty's theory of the rise of "Brahmin Left". That's a topic explored in the Recall This Book series on the Brahmin left ( Jan-Werner Muller, Matthew Karp and Thomas Piketty). Any hopeful note to end on? Well, bad government breeds righteous opposition. From Ronald Reagan we got...Minor Threat and the Bad Brains. Tune in tomorrow to hear John speak with David Cunningham; the previous conversation, already up on New Books Network, was with Mark Blyth. Listen and Read here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. In this episode, Vincent Brown (History professor at Harvard) last spoke with us about his own work on Caribbean slave revolts; his many other well-known projects include the recent PBS series The Bigger Picture. What exactly happened and will happen? Well, Vince has sympathy for Bernie Sanders Boston Globe op-ed about the Democrat's neglect of working-class and Gabriel Wynant's "Exit Right" abut the need to remake left-wing politics. He also takes seriously Thomas Piketty's theory of the rise of "Brahmin Left". That's a topic explored in the Recall This Book series on the Brahmin left ( Jan-Werner Muller, Matthew Karp and Thomas Piketty). Any hopeful note to end on? Well, bad government breeds righteous opposition. From Ronald Reagan we got...Minor Threat and the Bad Brains. Tune in tomorrow to hear John speak with David Cunningham; the previous conversation, already up on New Books Network, was with Mark Blyth. Listen and Read here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

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. In this episode, Vincent Brown (History professor at Harvard) last spoke with us about his own work on Caribbean slave revolts; his many other well-known projects include the recent PBS series The Bigger Picture. What exactly happened and will happen? Well, Vince has sympathy for Bernie Sanders Boston Globe op-ed about the Democrat's neglect of working-class and Gabriel Wynant's "Exit Right" abut the need to remake left-wing politics. He also takes seriously Thomas Piketty's theory of the rise of "Brahmin Left". That's a topic explored in the Recall This Book series on the Brahmin left ( Jan-Werner Muller, Matthew Karp and Thomas Piketty). Any hopeful note to end on? Well, bad government breeds righteous opposition. From Ronald Reagan we got...Minor Threat and the Bad Brains. Tune in tomorrow to hear John speak with David Cunningham; the previous conversation, already up on New Books Network, was with Mark Blyth. Listen and Read here. 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

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. In this episode, Vincent Brown (History professor at Harvard) last spoke with us about his own work on Caribbean slave revolts; his many other well-known projects include the recent PBS series The Bigger Picture. What exactly happened and will happen? Well, Vince has sympathy for Bernie Sanders Boston Globe op-ed about the Democrat's neglect of working-class and Gabriel Wynant's "Exit Right" abut the need to remake left-wing politics. He also takes seriously Thomas Piketty's theory of the rise of "Brahmin Left". That's a topic explored in the Recall This Book series on the Brahmin left ( Jan-Werner Muller, Matthew Karp and Thomas Piketty). Any hopeful note to end on? Well, bad government breeds righteous opposition. From Ronald Reagan we got...Minor Threat and the Bad Brains. Tune in tomorrow to hear John speak with David Cunningham; the previous conversation, already up on New Books Network, was with Mark Blyth. Listen and Read here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

#KöşedekiKitapçı'da bugün

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

"Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

"Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

Avec Sibylle Gollac, sociologue. Quand on a de la chance, la famille est un cocon affectif, mais aussi un lieu de solidarité.  Il y a toujours les petits arrangements que l’on bricole  au quotidien, et parfois il y a le gros héritage que l’on officialise chez le notaire. Et tout le monde n’est pas logé à la même enseigne. Sibylle Gollac est sociologue au CNRS et dans le livre qu’elle a coécrit avec Céline Bessière, “Le genre du capital” (La Découverte, 2020), elle aborde la famille comme une institution économique à part entière. Elle décortique comment la richesse circule, engendrant des inégalités  aussi bien entre les familles qu’en leur sein, entre les hommes et les femmes. Quel est le poids de la richesse héritée dans le patrimoine des Français ? Quel rôle joue la famille dans l'économie aujourd'hui ? Peut-on compter sur la famille ? Références :- Sybille Gollac, Céline Bessière, Le genre du capital, Comment la famille reproduit les inégalités, La découverte, 2020- Nicolas Frémeaux et Marion Leturcq, 2020, "Inequalities and the individualization of wealth", Journal of Public Economics 184: 1-18.- Pierre Bourdieu et Jean-Claude Passeron, La Reproduction, Éléments pour une théorie du système d'enseignement, Les Editions de minuit, 1970- Émile Durkheim, « La famille conjugale » [1892] in Textes III. Fonctions sociales et institutions, Éditions de Minuit, Paris, 1975- François de Singly, Sociologie de la famille contemporaine, Nathan, Paris, 2014 [1993]- Thomas Piketty, Le Capital au xxie siècle, Le Seuil, 2013 Archives sonores : - Ron Howard - Mitchell Hurwitz - Arrested Development - 2003 - 2006 - Renn Productions - Didier Bourdon et Bernard Campan- Les trois frères - 1995- CP productions - Pierre Carles - La sociologie est un sport de combat- 2001- Intrepid Pictures - Mike Flanagan -  La chute de la maison Usher- 2023- HBO - Jesse Armstrong - Succession - 2019  Musique Générique :« TRAHISON » Musique de Pascal Arbez-Nicolas © Delabel Editions, Artiste : VITALIC,(P) 2005 Citizen Records under Different Recording licence ISRC : BEP010400190,Avec l’aimable autorisation de [PIAS] et Delabel Editions.  Episode vidéo publié le 11 octobre 2024 sur arte.tv Autrice Laura Raim Réalisateur Jean Baptiste Mihout Son Nicolas Régent Montage Elias Garfein Mixage et sound design Jean-Marc Thurier Une co-production UPIAN Margaux Missika, Alexandre Brachet, Auriane Meilhon, Emma Le Jeune, Karolina Mikos avec l'aide de Nancy-Wangue Moussissa ARTE France Unité société et culture

The economist Thomas Piketty – author of international bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century – joins Roger Hearing to discuss the upcoming French elections, as fears of a far right election win make markets nervous.We also take a look at the world's second largest economy, China. Its premier Li Qiang is on a visit to Australia to try to repair a fractured relationship that has caused major problems for trade. Meanwhile China seems poised to impose tariffs on EU pork - is this just retaliation for tariffs on Chinese electric cars?

The two most dangerous presidents in American history lost the popular vote but won the slave state monument, the Electoral College: war criminal George W. Bush and Russian asset Donald Trump. Luckily it's within reach to reform the Electoral College, protecting democracy and the world.    Alyssa Cass of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a bipartisan movement to pass legislation in enough states across the country to ensure that the president is elected by the popular vote, joins Gaslit Nation to explain how to reform the Electoral College. Seventeen states and Washington, DC, with 209 electoral votes total, have already enacted the legislation. This means 61 electoral votes are needed in order for the popular vote–the will of the people–not the outdated and dangerous Electoral College, which gives way too much power to a handful of swing states, determines our elections. To be a part of the movement to reform the Electoral College, check the status of the legislation in your state and get involved: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status   This week's bonus episode, exclusive to supporters at the Truth-teller ($5/month) level and higher, features Russian mafia expert Olga Lautman and European analyst Monique Camarra of the Kremlin File podcast on the making of Vladimir Putin. Listeners at the Democracy Defender ($10/month) level and higher join the conversation on Gaslit Nation's coverage of Israel and Palestine. Thank you so much for all your comments! We always enjoy hearing from you!    Here are some of the exciting events we have coming up for our Patreon community at the Truth-teller tier and higher that make Gaslit Nation possible:    Investigative Journalist Craig Unger Live-Taping - June 25th 12pm ET:  June 25th is George Orwell's birthday! Come celebrate with us at a live taping of Gaslit Nation, featuring another fearless journalist, Craig Unger, the author of several bestselling books: House of Trump, House of Putin; House of Bush, House of Saud; and American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery (which features his reporting on Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile global crime syndicate). Joining the live-taping will be Russian mafia expert Olga Lautman and European analyst Monique Camarra of Kremlin File. Drop your questions in the chat! Be sure to subscribe at Patreon.com/Gaslit at the Truth-teller tier ($5/month) or higher to get your ticket. A zoom link will be sent out the morning of the event. Thank you to everyone who supports the show!    Cult Expert Dr. Janja Lalich Live-Taping - July 15 8pm ET July 15th kicks off the Republican National Convention/Hitler rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. To help us cope with the mainstream media, especially the New York Times, continuing to normalize Trump and his MAGA cult, we're producing a live taping with cult expert Dr. Janja Lalich. Bring your questions about how to navitage this perilous time of rampant disinformation and manipulation, learn the signs of cult grooming, and how to help loved ones who have fallen victim. This will be Dr. Lalich's second time on the show. You can listen to the interview with her from April 2022 here.    In the Shadow of Stalin Book Launch - September  Gaslit Nation will host a live taping at a book launch in New York City for In the Shadow of Stalin, the graphic novel adaptation of Mr. Jones. It includes scenes that didn't make it into the final cut of the film, or it would have been three hours long! The evening will include a special meet-up just for Patreon supporters. We look forward to sharing more details as we get closer. If you want a book event/live taping of Gaslit Nation in your town or city, let us know!    Indivisible x Gaslit Nation Phonebank Party! - June 20th 8pm ET Open to all, Gaslit Nation and Indivisible are kicking things off early this year, really early! When there's such a thing as Project 2025, there's no time to waste. Come join us for our first phone bank party of the season, as we make calls to our fellow citizens in Republican hostage states, to refuse to abandon those on the frontlines of American authoritarianism, and to plant seeds of change. We're going in!  RSVP here to join us! https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/628701/ Show Notes:   Pre-Order In the Shadow of Stalin: The Story of Mr. Jones, out this September! https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/In-the-Shadow-of-Stalin-The-Story-of-Mr-Jones/Andrea-Chalupa/9781637152775   The song you heard at the top of the show was 'The Fuel' by Jerrika Mighelle. You can find more music by Jerrika Mighelle on all streaming platforms or at jerrikamighelle.com. And be sure to check out the beautiful official video for 'The Fuel' on YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXK32cYuOWs   Post-9/11 wars have contributed to some 4.5 million deaths, report suggests https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terror-911-deaths-afghanistan-iraq/   Surveillance and interference: Israel's covert war on the ICC exposed Top Israeli government and security officials have overseen a nine-year surveillance operation targeting the ICC and Palestinian rights groups to try to thwart a war crimes probe, a joint investigation reveals. https://www.972mag.com/icc-israel-surveillance-investigation/   Spying, hacking and intimidation: Israel's nine-year ‘war' on the ICC exposed https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/spying-hacking-intimidation-israel-war-icc-exposed   Fareed Zakaria: Is Israel committing humanitarian crimes in Gaza? The Israeli gov't strenuously denies it. Aryeh Neier, a giant in the world of human rights who escaped Nazi Germany and later cofounder Human Rights Watch, says the answer is yes. Our conversation from today's GPS: https://x.com/FareedZakaria/status/1794793567543509201   Thomas Piketty's Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/books/review/a-brief-history-of-equality-thomas-piketty.html   Why the Voting Rights Act Is Once Again Under Threat https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/why-the-voting-rights-act-is-once-again-under-threat.html   William Barr, nation's top lawyer, is a culture warrior Catholic https://www.ncronline.org/news/william-barr-nations-top-lawyer-culture-warrior-catholic   Bill Barr, frequent Trump critic, says he will support the ‘Republican ticket' in November https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/politics/bill-barr-donald-trump-vote/index.html   “I started Occupy Wall Street. Russia tried to co-opt me” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/02/activist-russia-protest-occupy-black-lives-matter   What will Trump jury decide? Here are the three options https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c033m2qdm0no  

Who could have believed it? On a cold, wet night in Westminster, Rishi Sunak stunned the nation with an unexpected announcement: a General Election for July 4th. Today's podcast couldn't be more timely as we dive into an in-depth analysis of the UK's political and economic landscape over the past 14 years. From the impacts of austerity and Brexit to the COVID-19 pandemic, we cover it all.Joined by Dr. Nicola Headlam, an expert in subnational economic policy development, we dissect the mismanagement of these crises, the deterioration of public services, and the widening inequality gap. This episode is essential listening for anyone invested in the UK's political and economic future. Our conversation critiques current government policies, highlighting the urgent need for a robust plan to tackle economic inequality, recapitalise the poor, and fundamentally shift the country's economic strategies. We advocate for a future government that prioritises progress over power and implements policies that genuinely benefit the population, countering the systemic challenges of years of poor governance.Timestamps:00:00 Opening Remarks00:21 Insights on UK's Economic Challenges00:45 The Banking Crisis and Long-term Effects05:03 Sunak's Leadership and Political Landscape06:39 The Impact of Austerity, Brexit, and COVID08:49 The Dire State of Public Services13:07 Economic Policies and Time for Change18:33 The Role of Local Government and Community in Recovery33:08 Addressing Inequality and the Future of UK34:42 Butler to the World: A Detailed List of Heterodox Economic Thinkers & Books for a Path Forward38:40 Reimagining UK's Economic and Social Policies53:50 Closing ThoughtsEnjoyed the podcast?