PowerSwitch

Seems this is the new must read.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/a ... bestseller

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/m ... -economist

From reading a few reviews (I've not read the 700 pages nor even invested the requisite £30 yet) Piketty seems to be saying what I've always thought was the bleedin' obvious but, importantly, he proves it's true.

biffvernon wrote:Seems this is the new must read.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/a ... bestseller

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/m ... -economist

From reading a few reviews (I've not read the 700 pages nor even invested the requisite £30 yet) Piketty seems to be saying what I've always thought was the bleedin' obvious but, importantly, he proves it's true.

The chap seams to have totally missed the effect of cheap oil on the worlds economy over the last 150 years. Makes his conclusions rather dubious don't you think.

I don't know, what with not having read it yet, but I expect he thought of that one and has an answer for you. I would hesitate to criticise.

Actually he doesn't seem to deal with that (at least, according to various reviews I've read). He is dealing strictly with documenting inequality per se, and its effects on the social fabric. Our issue here is more like the absolute amount of wealth available, rather than with its distribution.

Of course, eventually the two (squeeze on the total, plus relative squeeze on the middle and poor) will reinforce each other. I think this is why inequality is becoming so noticeable, and so commented-upon of late.

I am not upset that Mrs. Mars has made billions selling M&Ms or Bill Gates has billions from selling software. I am upset that the government of the US stripped about two trillion in property equity from middle class and poor people that happen to own a house that lies in a flood plain by changing the flood insurance program and lending requirements. This without any compensation or any acknowledgement of the effect of the law they passed. (Another bill they passed before anyone read it. )

Discussion about Piketty's Capital on Radio 4 Today Programme about 8.50.

vtsnowedin wrote: I am not upset that Mrs. Mars has made billions selling M&Ms or Bill Gates has billions from selling software. I am upset that the government of the US stripped about two trillion in property equity from middle class and poor people that happen to own a house that lies in a flood plain by changing the flood insurance program and lending requirements. This without any compensation or any acknowledgement of the effect of the law they passed. (Another bill they passed before anyone read it. )

Quite right too.

However, would your Government have had to resort to such subterfuge in its desperate scrabble for cash if the likes of DODGY TAX AVOIDERS etc had paid their taxes properly, or if Mr Gates et al had been subject to a slightly higher tax rate?..

RenewableCandy wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote: I am not upset that Mrs. Mars has made billions selling M&Ms or Bill Gates has billions from selling software. I am upset that the government of the US stripped about two trillion in property equity from middle class and poor people that happen to own a house that lies in a flood plain by changing the flood insurance program and lending requirements. This without any compensation or any acknowledgement of the effect of the law they passed. (Another bill they passed before anyone read it. )

Quite right too.

However, would your Government have had to resort to such subterfuge in its desperate scrabble for cash if the likes of DODGY TAX AVOIDERS etc had paid their taxes properly, or if Mr Gates et al had been subject to a slightly higher tax rate?..

There are two issues here. The first which is the flood insurance crisis is vexing me a lot as my town (where I hold office as an "Lister") [ assessor to most people] has its village astride a flood plain and I have had the sad duty to inform dozens of property owners that their homes are now worth less then half what they had been told they were worth and had been paying property taxes on. The second is the proper level of taxation and spending. I am in favor of balanced budgets especially for public works and expenditures that go on from year to year. I also think the top tax rate should be no more then 25% and certainly not more then 33%. But with that cravat I want that rate applied to every dollar earned no matter by what means and paid before the remainder is spent, transferred, placed in a trust fund, given to charity, or disposed of in any other way. Inheritance taxes should only be a settling up of taxes due on income that had not yet been declared and paid on such as long term holdings of stock, capital gains etc that now only get paid when the stock is sold. Tax everything above your standard deduction at the 25% tax rate and I think there would be plenty for all real government needs. In short I want everybody to pay a fair rate but they must pay it!! and I only want to tax an income dollar one time not two or three times at different stages.
I would also set corporate tax rates at levels that are competitive with what other countries are charging so there would be no incentive to hide money over seas.

One other point. The feds did not make money by changing the flood insurance rates. They merely divested themselves of the future liability of replacing these homes after a future flood. The new rates are so absurdly high that few if any will actually purchase a policy and keep up the payments. When a future flood happens and homes are destroyed they will merely say "Not our problem" "You should have had flood insurance".
Perhaps this is a first step in the collapse of the western civilization built on cheap oil.

Some quite sensible letters to the Guardian can be found here.

Worthy though the book may be, it appears that Piketty has not paid sufficient regard to ecological limits.

The truth however is that growth is an alternative to egalitarian redistribution

There you have it, folks.

Precisely.

Growth was (for some) am alternative to egalitarian redistribution on the way up. However, on the way down, growth's very limited efficacy (in the context of capitalism) in the equitable allocation of resources, is a complete non-starter. That is, unless we are content to see a descent into fascism and barbarism. A socialist system of allocation of resources is the only thing that will hold that barbarism at bay as this global crisis unfolds.

Now Robert Peston has a quick look at the end of growth. This is peak oil in action, folks, though he doesn't acknowledge that simple fact.

Referring to the US and the UK, he says:

fruits of growth are being harvested in huge numbers of new jobs but not in rising living standards

or, what he alludes to earlier in the article as 'flexible labour markets'. This simply means people are being forced into lower-paid and worse jobs.

There is no happy ending for the fossil fuel age.