A “Capital” Discussion

wpid-20150112_195941.jpg

The choice of “Capital” by Thomas Piketty may have been slightly crazy to choose, at close to 700 pages.  Larry, LuMarie and I read between 100 and 300 pages each. Hikaru read the entire book last year for a class at Kalamazoo College and filled in some of the points. Thanks to LuMarie, we also had the following articles to browse while waiting at the Michigan News Agency: “The short guide to Capital in the 21st Century,” “Piketty’s “Capital,” in a Lot Less than 696 Pages,” and Tom the Dancing Bug (cartoon). You can find these articles and more at the publisher’s website.

Our particular discussion included the point that Piketty used literature to study wealth since not many metrics existed otherwise. In fact, it was noted that there was a high amount of Jane Austen moments. Piketty also referenced Balzac quite a bit. What the literature angle suggests is that the general population was aware of the differences, and expected certain incomes for certain positions. It was also noted in our discussion that not much changed in the 19th century, yet going back 50 or 60 years now would not work without converting the difference to be able to compare.

Capital

Big changes came because of World War I, World War II, and a population growth (that has since slowed down). One addition mentioned at our discussion was the effect of labor unions. We also returned to the point of education. Could education be the answer? Piketty’s suggestion is to have a world tax.

The articles mentioned above do a great job of clearly summarizing the book. Knowing that, is the book worth reading? What I liked was how the book was organized, and that you don’t need to be an expert in economics for it to make sense. While LuMarie still plans on finishing “Capital” because it is being considered such a keystone book, I may pass, at least for now, and move on to the next one. However, I definitely recommend reading what Piketty wrote if you have the time to do it.

A few other points to note:

  • Some inequality is desirable cause it provides incentive to improve.
  • People with capital have power to make better investments.
  • A question that came up: Is there a huge inequality in non-capitalistic countries? One conclusion is that it is human nature and does not specifically exist in a capitalistic society, which many are interpreting from the study.

Is there an answer to the question of evening out the difference between the wealthy and the poor? Will the wealthy continue to inherit and be the most powerful? What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading!

Stacy (a.k.a. “The Book Lady”)

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 2015

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s