Thomas Piketty: New thoughts on capital in the twenty-first century

[@tishmfey]

I love that he speaks and thinks faster in his second language than I do in my first. Great lecture.

[@dominicfaison5889]

protect this man at all costs

[@landsea7332]

Great Comment - its clear Thomas Pikitty 's findings are the real deal when various weasels try to discredit his work - Such as the American Enterprise Institute , some neo liberal weasel at the BBC , and the Henry George School .

[@lauriwalden8484]

Xr

[@Sharpov1997]

I'm Russian and I can understand everything he is saying. Stop the hate and ad hominem attacks.

[@remypalisse4102]

I can understand it too but it's still unpleasant to hear... That's not hate btw

[@Cythil]

Rémy Palisse But it not that constructive criticism and do not add much to the discussion. So yeah lets move on.

[@JohnBastardSnow]

I can understand his Frenglish perfectly as well and I'm not a native speaker.

[@remypalisse4102]

Cythil Comments are not necessarily about the subject of the video, they can also be about the video. This guy has a great point but he's not a good speaker. He would gain to improve his public oral performance.

[@Cythil]

Rémy Palisse I do agree that he could use some better skills in speaking in public. But I think that people are just taking it a bit to far.

[@Deceivednb]

Piketty is one of the finest economists of the 21st century so far, author of a book that has totally changed our view of economics, and all the comments can do is complain about the accent...

[@justgivemethetruth]

Right wingers always have to whinge about stuff that doesn't matter, it's all they can do.

[@vesogry]

@@justgivemethetruth But leftists are the ones who want free stuff, right?

[@justgivemethetruth]

@@vesogry That is super-silly. Right now the billionaires are voting themselves money - what is more free-stuff than that? And you are paying for it in many ways.

[@vesogry]

​@@justgivemethetruth They are paying thousands of times more in taxes than you. Are you saying that they should pay the same as you?

[@justgivemethetruth]

@@vesogry The way you frame that question is completely dishonest, or completely obtuse. The same ... yes, in some way apparently you do not understand or want to acknowledge ... as in "their fair share". Just because they pay more than me or I pay more than others ... what should matter is our collective votes and needs and contributes.

[@gmchico]

You people trashing his accent should go read his book. Or maybe you could go and try to learn French and see how difficult it is for a native English speaker; which would of course show you how difficult it must be the other way round. By the way, I have Portuguese as a native language and I can undersand every word he says. More than that: I focus in WHAT HE SAYS, and it is such a powerful message.

[@louiscamiscioli8721]

+Gabriel Chico im a native english speaker, he's literally speaking extremely clearly. No problem what so ever.

[@John47mg]

By the way, it's harder for French to learn how to pronounce correctly because English has more sounds than French even if French is globally more difficult to learn than english.

[@carolinadama]

Parabéns pra você e o seu inglês porque eu não consegui não.

[@CodexSan]

Gabriel Chico good for you... I'm Brazilian, but I don't understand spoken English, specially the USA one. I manage the one spoken in UK. I mostly write and read it.

[@shillgates6664]

MANY "facts" he states ARE WRONG! Google would show you that! Sloppy work!

[@flx4305]

His work is not to find solutions, he made a big analysis about inequality, capital and growth than nobody did before, and that's already a huge step.

[@scott98804]

There isn't much new thought here, your just an idiot.

[@DrGoldsylver]

You need to identify a problem, before to find solutions

[@satyamfifa]

@Connor Creegan That's nothing they debunked the whole idea of economy back in 70's and 80's

[@Economiacontemporanea]

Connor Creegan wich exact ideas were debunked over a century ago and how? Who debunked them?

[@nerios.v]

it's wrong though, oversimplified bullshit

[@oNTiger]

Fellas, it's really not that hard to turn on the subtitles.

[@augustvctjuh8423]

+Lightspeed Then tell me, how do I? There is no button like there usually is...

[@oNTiger]

+august vctjuh If it's not next to the settings gear, it's in the settings

[@augustvctjuh8423]

+Lightspeed it's not for me. there are some subtitles here i just found though www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_capital_in_the_twenty_first_century/transcript

[@miguelmundstockxavierdecar9907]

yes, thank you for remind me about this. Very useful.

[@Hiphop101ize]

how do I do this on my phone?

[@anaselhaouat]

His accent is perfect; it makes you concentrate more on what he says. And it's very important indeed.

[@JohnBastardSnow]

_"We need global financial transparency"_ We do. But I doubt those who have the most wealth want it.

[@Elpuma1374]

Jon, THAT'S why we must work to enact laws that enforce financial transparency: period.

[@Goldendinosaur]

If more people want it they have to adopt the laws. It's not a fun message to bring for the wealthy but they are not stupid as well, they know the time has come that we have to be just a little more fair and stop the gap between filthy rich and poor to grow a lot bigger.

[@Goldendinosaur]

@Astro Bastro Okay but they don't have much of a choice if 99% of the people want it do they? :p Ofcourse they have more power, but in France they also just beheaded the rich haha, so never say never. Change is always possible. As long as people believe in it enough (social constructivism). But sadly the elite constructs our opinion as well. Even poor say we need very rich to not destroy entrepreneurship, while history showed that even in times of 90% taxes in USA there was just as much entrepreneurship. So we should be more critical I think.

[@glisade2789]

@@Goldendinosaur meh, people still move for better taxes. Like from germany/france to Switzerland. No sportsstar or race driver like shumacher want to pay 75% after 1mil euro, when they make 20-50m or even more. Why would they even bother playing?

[@Goldendinosaur]

@@glisade2789 true, that's why it can only be solved by international political cooperation between states. That's why I don't understand why people are so scared to trade in some of their states sovereignty for effective international cooperation like the EU or UN. We need that

[@SpartanF8]

That is a lot of research, dedication and hard work he did. The data is a matter of interpretation, application and real world effects. Interesting but many will attack it out of fear of socialist concepts.

[@shillgates6664]

The idiot says FDR raised TAX rate in 1932! Sorry Pisano but FDR was elected in 1932, NOVEMBER, So HE COULD NOT have raised tax rates in 1932! That's ONE OF MANY FACTS he has WRONG! RESEARCH EPIC FAIL

[@Dead_L4st]

@@shillgates6664 isn’t this the most pedantic of points you could make?

[@JMM333]

r>g describes at most a sub-process of the concentration tendency of capital. The problem is rather that through mechanization more and more workers fall out of the production process and thus can no longer consume. This almost appears as a class struggle between states, because the Italians and Spaniards soon cannot afford a Volkswagen. New technologies are creating new jobs, but they cannot be performed by the old workers. No assembly line worker suddenly becomes a computer scientist. The question is also when the point will come when the service sectors will no longer be able to absorb the dismantling of the production sectors. And as I said, these are also regional issues. Many parts of the world are already completely cut off, while in others the middle class is breaking away and technology is migrating. The problem is not r>g, but falling profits, as more capital is spent on machinery, less on workers. Only workers generate profit in the long run (unpaid work) - after all secondary effects, like profits of one single company through better technologies, which are declining, when others get the same machinery, are seen as individual competetive benefits. The capital is raised by start-ups on the stock market, and they have now understood how unprofitable the real economy is and are pushing companies like Nikola, which didn't even produce a single electric truck, over Ford. Simulating profit expectations and selling off stocks before the crash, then investing in the real estate bubble again etc. pp.: thats the game. The question is also, where do we actually want to grow to? We could take away world hunger, offer everyone public transport and leisure activities. In Germany an unemployed person lives like a king hundreds of years ago. Billionaires buy yachts and private jets, which is ultimately the height of perversion. Prosperity grew rapidly, inequality remained, leading to absurd ownership constellations. Work and production has become an end in itself. Piketty reduces the problem to the question of distribution of wealth, but the real question and contradiction begins in the production. One solution is seen in the taxation of the work of robots in order to finance the "tittytainment" (Brzeziński), which actually only shows how deadlocked people are on the distribution issue. Piketty didnt solved anything. He cements the problem

[@miguelricardoarandazamudio2552]

Piketty's work is extraordinary. His analysis is strictly economic and in addition to being rigorous, it shows the need to interpret the economy as Marx or Webber did, taking into account the political and social variables. For example, understanding the equivalence between money and power can have a much clearer perspective on how this excessive growth of large capitalists, even above national economies, can lead to the end of democracy and to eradicate any counterweight.

[@shillgates6664]

RIGOROUS??????? Gee, he claims FDR raised taxes to 63% in 1932. #1 FDR wasn't ELECTED until NOV 1932, took OFFICE in JAN 1933! #2 Congress raises TAXES, NOT POTUS #3 He says Hoover LOWERED taxes to 25%, EXCEPT that was in 1925!! COOLIDGE WAS PRESIDENT in 1925!! AND besides, SEE#2!! IF THAT is rigorous, I GOT a Bridge for Sale! Called the "Brooklyn Bridge" Today, YOUR special PRICE.....JUST $25,000 and the BRIDGE IS ALL YOURS

[@TejasM14]

In simpler sociological terms, unrestrained capitalism necessarily leads to oligarchy and the end of capitalism, with the inequality ever increasing. The only solution to make capitalism and democracy viable is to introduce high taxation for the wealthy. This solution is however not politically feasible given current dynamics. Lock and load people, we are on course for the return of serfdom, if we are not already in it.

[@mariob7791]

Being a foreigner I was happy to understand Pikkety’s speech much better than most speeches I’ve been hearing from native English speakers, many of them dumping bells, whistles and linguistic artifacts over the audience. Regarding content, his comprehensive work and correspondingly very synthesized outcome, in my view, are of huge value as tools to promote healthier policies for a better world. But as he said, this is not up to him, but for those people elected to do the job.

[@hoarfyt]

Step 1. Have the privilege of your language to be the chosen one in which western society discuss global matters by sheer historical circumstance. Step 2. Display racist inclinations and zero willigness to understand foreign people's ideas because 'it's not comfortable to listen'. Step 3. ??? Step 4. Profit.

[@viralmelon]

I'm English and I don't see the problem

[@CodexSan]

Bwhahahahah... I'm Brazilian, but I don't understand spoken English (i do understand a little UK english, but not the one spoken in USA), so, i just watch with the subtitles on, 'cause i can read and write it almost perfectly.

[@onewhosaysgoose4831]

1) Racist inclinations is not unique to England and the US, though that does nothing to excuse them for these inclinations. 2) The USA has demonstrated extreme difficulty accepting the ideas of its own people just as much as foreign people. The culture of unwillingness to listen is not reserved for foreigners, but is indeed suffocating debate and learning among people as close as neighbors.

[@thomasd2444]

00:29 - r > g 14:33 - 16:00 -

[@daniyalnaqvi2569]

Excellent Ted-talk. Piketty is amazing

[@sylvieasics6570]

Watched your movie "Capital in the 21st century" yesterday. Great job! I wish the politicians listen to you.. quick!!

[@jamesd5241]

i cant see a single comment complaining about his accent but a bunch of simps who are making up this issue

[@DAVA653]

If you change your comment settings from top to latest you see them

[@youbian]

*When the rate of return on capital significantly exceeds the growth rate of the economy (as it did through much of history until the nineteenth century and as is likely to be the case again in the twenty-first century), then it logically follows that inherited wealth grows faster than output and income. * It is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime’s labor by a wide margin, and the concentration of capital will attain extremely high levels-levels potentially incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social justice fundamental to modern democratic societies.

[@patricks1333]

One of the simplest refutations of that r > g argument was to point out that if the return on capital was such a guaranteed winner, then why is it that hedge funds, mutual funds, and the like have such a hard time capturing that sort of consistent return for their investors? Piketty ignores the risky and sporadic nature of capital investment returns, given that capital can be wiped out in disastrous events, and even if when it's not, it usually results in larger returns after several years of breaking even or losses rather than consistent high returns. I thought his chart for a 5% return on capital prior to 1850 seemed rather dubious. I mean, since he seems to ignore capital-expenses, 10$ worth of capital reinvested in more capital would mean that the cumulative interest would leave more capital in 1850 that has ever existed. If he was really serious about getting capital value out of the hands of capitalists, he could be calling on the rich to consume more. Vastly more. Like, building themselves golden palaces levels of consumption.

[@Funraiser]

Capital markets have been providing 12% on average per year for the past 100 years. (Source: Rid Edelman). The economy only grows at 3% in the best years. The fact that hedge funds can't capture that 12% only shows how stupid they are, not that capital growth is not there. Get an education before you try to unmount Thomas Picketty's 15 years of research. You are just ridiculous and you had to hear it from someone.

[@chilledlikeasunday]

Investors are compensated for the risk in their investment

[@gabgabo]

The man is super smart. I've watched interviews of him on French TV and he's amongst the most articulate speakers I've heard. Why not let him do his conference in French? He's fairly popular in France, so why not have him participate in a TED talk there?

[@HanZhang1994]

I don't know why so many complain about his accent. It's understandable and it's very amusing to listen to.

[@freeworld_freeworld]

Thomas Piketty opened a lot of people's eyes to their views to modern economic. He is of the best and impactful economist in 21 century.

[@amorosogombe9650]

He's perfectly understandable and very articulate.

[@15harrishawk]

I found it hard not to stop the video at the beginning and couple of times in the middle but I'm glad I watched it through now. He made some strong points and has some great ideas. A fair economy is good for all of us, think of what could happen if we could redistribute wealth...

[@Kevin-xs8xn]

notes in the long-run, r > g (return on capital is greater than the return on economic growth), which leads to income inequality in the last century, Europe and US have flipped: the US is now much more unequal there are many reasons for this, including unequal access to skills, fast rise in top incomes wealth inequality is always a lot higher than income inequality wealth inequality is still less extreme than 1900 with r > g, initial inequalities are amplified at faster pace there is always some level of dynamism and change (e.g., large families, poor investment decisions) for most of history r > g (g was mostly 0 in agrarian society) r > 0 was necessary for eventual labor diversification and societal evolution both r and g have risen over time long-run g is about 1-2%, we’ve seen unusually high g (3-4%) in post-war 20th century long-run r is about 4-5% r-g delta is caused by technology, savings rate, other factors r > g particularly strong for billionaires; there are scale effects (e.g., portfolio management, financial instruments, tax evasion and lawyers and accountants) main suggestion: increase financial transparency if he were to rewrite the book today, he’d actually conclude that US income inequality higher than he reported

[@modernphil1049]

I love the intellectual humility of this guy. Most academics tend to self promote the superiority of their work due to the current toxic, overcrowded, and competitive condition of academia. But this guy is so careful not to misguide the audience, and he humbly presents the possible shortcomings at the start of the video.

[@BenETaylor]

Great guy & I have no problem with his accent.

[@GeorgeKaniuk]

One very important area of concern in Mr. Piketty's excellent hypotheses relates to the methodology of how a democratic society controls the flagrant abuse in government spending. Witness the insane misappropriation of taxpayer money (waste) in nearly all democratic states. How do we control this abuse? You may reply that we have the power every 4 years to change the governing body, but that is woefully inadequate. This, I believe, is the most important question and reveals the vulnerable underbelly of democracy as it exists today.

[@frankthetank8216]

What a legend. His book is epic

[@benjaminadams_]

I love how much Piketty’s content overlaps with Gary Stevenson’s, who is increasingly becoming more popular in 2024

[@jbmetrics42]

So far the responses can be grouped into criticisms ranging from the superficial (commenting on his accent, rather than the content), the reactionary (commenting why should we pay more taxes), the critical (essentially trying to prove or discredit his work), but almost none discussing possible solutions. In the world of TED watchers and people that leave comments, can no one talk about the issue and put forward solutions rather than trying to simply kill the messenger? The Internet should be the place of conversation on important subjects, not just posting memes, trolling, and watching funny cat videos.

[@jbmetrics42]

***** Actually all you have provided is a non-sequitur and on top of that, you have not provided a solution and how it addresses the fundamental flaws in a capitalistic society. How is that for being non-superficial, non-reactionary, and not attempting to shoot you down as the messenger but rather seeking the use of logic, critical thinking and compassion to make a point?

[@jbmetrics42]

***** My original comment was merely an observation followed by a rhetorical question. Observations aren't statements that use nor require authoritative appeal. Nowhere in my original comment did I make an authoritative appeal, merely an observation followed by a question. It was you that jumped to a 'solution' and now claims of 'an authoritative appeal'. As far as defensive posture assumption on your part, it is more one of confusion and trying to follow your line of thinking (which so far seems to be one non-sequitur after another.) I am glad you acknowledge your 'solution' was a non-sequitur, but nowhere in my comment did I use a red herring. "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategy (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation." (source: Wikipedia) The point of my comment was at that time during the original posts, there were plenty critiquing Piketty's accent rather than the content of the subject he was discussing, some were even throwing out slurs and French stereotypes. When the world of capitalism has some fundamental flaws that are showing, it is time for a serious discussion about how to either address the problems in capitalism or come up with a better solution rather than having a superficial trolling session. How you get authoritative appeal and red herring from that is quite amusing. Your assumption of my 'emotional state' is both inaccurate and irrelevant to the subject and conversation at hand. As for conveying emotion, using phrases like "I really really hate authoritative fallacies", besides forgetting the use of a comma between the two 'really's reflects more about your emotional state than it does provide insight in to mine for you to be able to make your assumptions. A little less assuming and a bit more honest inquiring to better understand what the other person is saying will help you avoid making incorrect assumptions, just a friendly suggestion.

[@NoeticSystem]

What he's saying is a taboo. I've already spoken of this matter to lots and lots of people, and their reactions are not only universally negative backlash, but also, they try and turn it around and make it personal. "Well, you're just rich and privileged yourself since you live in a first-world country and aren't eating dirt every morning, abloobloobloo". People will do anything to make excuses for hyper-capitalism.

[@shillgates6664]

Gee, he claims FDR raised taxes to 63% in 1932. #1 FDR wasn't ELECTED until NOV 1932, took OFFICE in JAN 1933! #2 Congress raises TAXES, NOT POTUS #3 He says Hoover LOWERED taxes to 25%, EXCEPT that was in 1925!! COOLIDGE WAS PRESIDENT in 1925!! AND besides, SEE#2!!

[@shillgates6664]

I know, who cares about FACTS right?? Any tale you can spin, most internet lunks are working on their GED still @ 27 years old!

[@dimitrovniko608]

I've come from 07th September 2021. in order to listen to the theorie economique of piketty. Thanks to his French accent, I feel a bit difficult to understand. (It is difficult to understand what he says coz his speech is speedy) But I bet his capitalisme is fantastic indeed. I wanna applause his hard wørk. I was able to get more interested in his theorie.

[@AbdulKareemAbdulRahman]

amazing! Thanks for your efforts prof.

[@realshubham1998]

Do watch this Ted talk by the author himself. Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a 2013 book by French economist Thomas Piketty. It focuses on wealth and income inequality in Europe and the United States since the 18th century. It was initially published in French in August 2013; an English translation by Arthur Goldhammer followed in April 2014.[1] The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. Piketty proposes a global system of progressive wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny minority. His ideas can be used in essays related to inclusive development/growth

[@jarpen]

15:52 here it comes... Handshake with the air? :D

[@lukemccann]

I am Irish, I don’t know any French. I really enjoyed this presentation and understood every word clearly, in fact I probably enjoyed it all the more because of the cool accent. Bottom line, if you had difficulty understanding this presentation, it is because you have difficulty understanding English.

[@Coliineenvideo]

ce monsieur doit expliquer des choses intéressantes mais je n'y comprend rien. Pourriez vous mettre des sous-titre s'il vous plaît? merci.

[@tyn6211]

This is pretty simple idea to any oncologist, epidemiologist, thermodynamics physicist, etc. Absent negative feedback inhibitors, any growth mechanism/pathway will eventually consume all available resources until there's nothing left. For a while, the US political economy had these checks in place. For example, prior to the infinite corporations, concentrated wealth was returned to the overall system via the estate tax. Or it was inhibited via a punitive top tax rate (90+% during the post-WW2 era) or by strict enforcement of antitrust law.

[@nO_d3N1AL]

Am I the only one who understands him just fine?

[@crystalc1ear]

Sina Madani I do too

[@seanwieland9763]

Inequality is a feature not a bug. All stable scalable networks are necessarily Pareto distributions / power law curves. aka scale-free networks.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

You can change the distribution of wealth substantially using laws, as has been proven repeatedly.

[@RobertWoottonNo1]

He has given a valid explanation for a phrase I used in my book, "the rich are always with us". However, his call for financial transparency is also answered in my book. His writing deals with the existing economic reality. My argument is that the Global Economic System is a (man made) social construction of reality. I believe and know that it is possible to design and construct an alternative economic system that has economic justice as its systemic output. Possible but not probable. The politicians would have too little to argue about. It would put a lot of them out of business, including government bureaucracies.

[@BlairWoldorf645]

I find his accent very charming ♥... Though the topic of the speech is quite important and serious)

[@denislahaie6178]

Piketty also stressed that education (training) and productivity (hardware) are the main factors for growth. Any resources not allocated to these two factors are detrimental to progress.

[@rudiesan_89]

Anyone focused on his accent needs to spend more time @ the nearest metropolitan area near him/her. It says more about themselves than his beautiful French accent.

[@shillgates6664]

Many of his US Facts are just OBVIOUSLY WRONG! Taxes went to 63% in 1932! FDR was elected in NOV 1932, HOW did HE raise taxes in 1932??? Like saying Biden did ANYTHING in 2020, HE DID NOT!

[@igorkrupitsky]

Can someone please explain to me why Piketty predicts that r (rate of return on capital) will rise above 4% in 2050-2100? So far I have seen declining return on capital rate and a quick glance at the 30 years yield curve does not suggest that things will get better.

[@DavidGelmanE]

He gives one explanation on page 359. As I understand his book, Dr. Piketty suggests that those who own capital will only consume their capital based on it's return. The 4% is the difference in the return and what is consumed. He suggests that the owners will adjust their rate of consumption to maintain their r. Then he goes on and says the tautological model may not be the only reason. if you have his book, look on pages 359 and 360. I believe he defines capital differently also then the way some American economists do. He includes stocks and land.

[@codediporpal]

"better"? Why do you call a higher percentage of income going to capital "Better"?

[@igorkrupitsky]

codediporpal, Sorry I meant better for anyone with a savings account. The rate of inflation of the US dollar for the last 10 years was 2.32%. www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%24100+in+2004 The current yield of the 10-year Treasury note is 2.49%. www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=yield+curve&lk=4&num=1 An average bank depositor should expect loose his money to unless he is willing to buy a 7 to 10 year CD or a treasury note. Of course, holding a treasury note for 10 years exposes you to some interest rate risk and there is the tax on the interest.

[@DavidGelmanE]

You make a good point. I guess an individual cannot achieve R through Treasury notes. The Arithmetic average gains of the S&P 500 have historically been: 11.5% from 1928-2013 11.29% from 1964-2013 9.10% from 2004-2013 The geometric averages are lower, but above the R. pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html

[@codediporpal]

Igor Krupitsky Treasuries represent a small portion of the estimated $180T+ wealth. If you look at real estate cap rates, it's more like 7% down from 9% 20 years ago. Pick pretty much any asset class and it's going to do better than treasury debt.

[@須永-m7g]

Thank you Piketty! This is definitely a paper that will change the future! I also had doubts about the disparities in this world. Piketty's book was very difficult for me, but I gained a lot of useful knowledge! Although Japan does not have a progressive capital taxation system, tax-exempt investment quotas have been established to give preferential treatment to people with low incomes. This is definitely the influence of Mr. Piketty. Based on Mr. Piketty's past data and its forecast data, I hope that the future return on capital r will be good, and I would like to do my best to diversify my investment. thanks so much!

[@mikecheng6010]

Piketty is my personal hero. He will be such an inspirational speaker if he practices more on his pronunciation/accent to make it easier for us to understand his great thoughts.

[@gerulais]

Where was this conference ?

[@Ramezml]

I thought there was going to be an extense and bastly interesting discussion down in the comments, but for the most part people are complaining about his accent. I live in México, have been doing that all my life, and understand him perfectly.

[@unpopularmoviereviews3622]

Thomas Sowell thoroughly debunks Thomas Piketty in his book "Wealth, Poverty, and Policitics" and his book "Economic Facts and Fallacies"

[@jazzfan7491]

You meant to say "responds weakly"

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

Sowell pretends to debunk lots of things but never quite delivers once you know a subject in depth.

[@chaosjacky]

Wow, I can understand this guy simply because I can speak french but man, he has one of the strongest accents I've ever heard, even frenchy parodies don't speak like this

[@boblake2340]

I think he must be Parisian. They speak like that even in french :P btw, I'm french...

[@shway1]

Bob Lake "They speak like that even in french" lmao

[@boblake2340]

Azu I mean the accent. "Accent pointu"... from the tip of the lips... Parisians are known for a very particular accent... :P and translated to english, it leads to all does "z"s and other sounds. :P

[@shway1]

Bob Lake I know what you meant, it's just funny.

[@MrEzilkannan]

I don't speak french, but I can understand him just fine.

[@craigholman1161]

And when all the wealth and income ends up at the top and credit is at an end who will be left to be the consumers that drive growth? It will not be a surprise to see the greed at the top actually undermine the system that created the income inequality.

[@rishabhkashyap619]

Stop behaving like kids, people, this man did his research and put in lot of effort in his work. Absorb the knowledge and make yourself better, language and accent doesn't as long as it's helping you and making you better.

[@Warrioroflight87]

I am Pakistani and I can understand what he is saying. Some amazing and sound ideas, bravo

[@IRMentat]

So model the system with a low tax rate then apply/investigate further changes using the data. Does not seem like a bad plan. IMO It's the methodology of gaining great wealth that should be looked at in addition to how that wealth is used. "Excess" Money as a whole should be used to make conditions better(health, transport, environment, education etc) The trouble is in deciding on thresholds and if/ how they should be enforced.

[@kunallobo4136]

This might sound like a dumb question, but why is the rate of return on capital greater than the economic growth? Isn't capital investment what causes economic growth?

[@kunallobo4136]

@pamanudavy but workforce becomes more productive because of investment right? Like it's not like the workforce is suddenly more capable?

[@landsea7332]

Kunallobo - As economist Micheal Hudson points out , economists before Marx made the distinction between using capital to create wealth ( goods and agriculture etc ) , as opposed to using capital to exploit others . Where as Neo Liberal economists say that any investment in capital creates wealth . . I would add that since the change to fiat currencies in 1971 ( Nixon ended the Breton Woods Agreement ) much of the money printed by central banks has ended up in the hands of the ultra wealthy to purchase assets. Capital is being used to turn everything into a commodity . .

[@kunallobo4136]

@@landsea7332 I disagree with those other economists about most of that stuff. All capital creates products which creates wealth.

[@jazzfan7491]

I'm pretty sure I posted a comment on this video a couple of years ago trying to help explain what Piketty means by "r is greater than g", but it seems the comment got deleted. Anyway, to repeat, as briefly as possible, what Piketty means is investment (that's "r" for "return", as in "return on investment") produces a bigger cash return than labor, or working (that's "g" for "growth", as in "economic growth". Think about having a job and working; you pay your bills and rent etc, then you have some left over -- that's your profit, the money you made which you can now spend on more stuff if you want. In that sense you are "growing" the amount of money you have). That sounds obscure but his point is that if you already have a lot of money and can invest it, over time, you will "do better" (meaning, make more money) than someone who is working and earning some profit. So his argument is that over a long period of time, people who already have money continue to get richer, while those who only work for a living fall behind. The key point is the difference between investing and working: Piketty says investors do better. He says this is why increasing inequality is inevitable. Of course a lot of people disagree with him -- as in the comments here. 🤓

[@skatevideos234]

Does anybody have links to critiques of Piketty's book?

[@tw3f4tes52]

I realise it’s a bit late, but if you didn’t know already there is a whole book called Anti-Piketty which is a collection of different critiques of C21

[@franciscovivesstone3623]

Splendid!

[@danielaszyldergemajn8476]

Hi does anybody know if is there a version with Spanish subtitles, Im preparing a class and my students dont have a good english level...

[@viscaernesto]

Abajo a la derecha del video sale la opción de poner subtítulos. Lo puedes poner en español y en 25 idiomas más 😉.

[@billburwood7047]

I just realised this is what i sound like when i speak french. :(

[@邓梓薇]

My French teacher speaks like that as well lol

[@providence1961]

He is great English speaker. Many French people his age even do not know simple English words.........

[@diaaaljuneidi7553]

Excellent

[@СараЉуботина]

Some french people will say that such a bad accent is rare even in France, but I"m not sure. i live in France, my english teacher in school has the exact same accent, and my friends around me too, it's because French people don't listen that much of english oustide of school, and even in school we only work on the grammar aspect, all foreign films are dubbed and like in all countries where the language is spoke by a lot of people around the world, you won't see many bilingual. They are still better at foreign languages than native english people aha (ok it's a joke I don't really know)

[@squirfly]

In terms of English accent, I think there is an huge generation gap between the young French and those born before the 60-70es. An accent such as Piketti's one is unusual and most French people would find it ridiculous.

[@squirfly]

+Squir Fly Picketti seems to be perfectly understandable from everybody. Criticism in the comments comes from the fact that we, young French, often look down at our elders because of their accent.

[@СараЉуботина]

Young french people still have a real problem with English accent.

[@LittrowTaurus]

I teach English in France. I would be delighted if my students had his fluency and his vocabulary. I don't think all natives would be able to do a lecture about economics which such ease...

[@neocortex002]

Excellent review, best I've heard for a solution.

[@derekmonsen8827]

Mr. Piketty's measurements of income are based on INCOME REPORTED ON TAX RETURNS (go to the link from the beginning of the presentation). Rich people are required to report more of their income, while the poor report less or don't have to report at all. This greatly skews the data making the rich look richer then they actually are and poor porrer then they actually are. Furthermore, Taxable income includes income from capital gains. When taxes went down on capital gains, such as in the 1920's and 1980's (see Mr. Piketty's graph at 3:00 ) people disposed of their assets and bought new ones, as it was prime time to do so. The capital gains created in this exchange skew Mr. Piketty's data to show the rich gaining income when they were in fact exchanging dodges for chevys and no new wealth was created. The fact of the matter is you cannot use Taxable income to determine income distribution, and if you do, you get the kind of false apocalyptic analysis here.

[@paulkwiecinski3894]

I'm not sure how you conclude that rich people report more income and the poor report less. Isn't all income reported, although the tax rate is lower on the poor in a progressive tax system?

[@derekmonsen8827]

For example, I live in Canada. You don't have to report any income at all until you make 11,400 dollars a year. Anyone making less then that would show up as if they made nothing. Also anyone who works in a cash based job (ie waitresses or the like) don't report any of there income at all. On the rich person side, it is much more difficult to hide large sums of money from the government, so not reporting is impossible. Combined with the capital gains issue I mentioned earlier and a plethora of other tax benefits for lower income people, and you get poor paying disproportionately less then rich.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

There exists a criticism, and I tend to agree, that wealth and capital are not quite the same thing. Capital goods are different from just any other asset and it seems that they are being treated as if they are interchangeable by Piketty.

[@jeffnindo]

In defense of Americans who have read more than one book, I understood the speaker just fine.

[@AKDGsonic]

-Actually, I think for many no-french speaker it is hard for them to understand some words from his mouth. But it is still a very good presentation.

[@mehtapsarac370]

Alt yazıyı Türkçe de yapa bilirmisiniz sevgilier❤

[@bb3xhrhj]

"caused a sensation in early 2014 with his book ... Economic inequality is not new, but it is getting worse, with radical possible impacts." Wow, really? This is absolutely new information, this man is a genious. Watched 7 minutes of this, will never get that back. Waste of fucking time (unless you are highly unaware of your surrounding and is able to understand frenclish..

[@macktsionmackenzie3094]

Splendit!

[@nthperson]

What Thomas Piketty has provided to us is extremely important but significantly flawed in one critical respect: he has never clearly distinguished between the ownership and control of nature (i.e., land, as a primary and passive factor of production) and the goods we produce from nature that are then converted into the capital goods essential to modern production. In the real world, there are rarely gains on the resale of a capital good. Buildings, machinery, technologies all depreciate in exchange value over time. Gains experienced on the sale of land, of natural resource holdings, or of any natural asset with an inelastic supply (e.g., frequencies on the broadcast spectrum or take-off and landing slots at airports) are unearned to individuals and private entities, yet are almost everywhere taxed at much lower rates than income earned producing goods or providing services. In the language of the great French political economist Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, our systems of law, taxation and public policy have created "rentier" dominated economies rather than actual capital-dominated economies. An analogy most people will understand is found in the ownership of residential real estate. A parcel of land improved by a housing structure combines assets with two very distinct characteristics. A housing unit begins to depreciate as soon as construction is completed. Constant maintenance is required. Even so, the resale value of a housing unit is calculated as replacement cost, less depreciation. The land parcel is unique; it cannot be produced; the supply of land parcels available is fixed by nature. As population increases the demand for locations for housing and other uses, the potential rental value of locations increases. The more central the location to business and employment and other public goods and services, the greater will be this potential rental value. Over time, land uses change, although it take a long time for existing structures to be replaced by more intensive (i.e., highest, best) use. Single Family detached homes along a heavily-traveled road will be replaced by multi-storied buildings. Zoning will change to accommodate higher densities, rental and commercial use. However, a good deal of land is held off the market for years or decades as owners anticipate ever-rising values and rarely experience reassessment based on current value. Net of whatever annual tax is imposed, the market will capitalize the imputed location rental value into a potential selling price for the location. The almost universal low effective rate of taxation on location rental values means that for a significant majority of property owners their net worth is comprised of unearned, capitalized land rent. Expand this analogy to commercial, industrial, resource-laden lands and it is clear to see that rentier interests siphon off much of the value generated by productive actors in the economy. And, this is only the tip of the iceberg where rent-seeking gains are concerned. Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

[@jemandoondame2581]

Do you also "hear" a cut in the video ? 5:13

[@ElephantRage]

He english is basically perfect in terms of grammar and syntax. He has a somehow funny accent but sounds 100% comprehensible to me, and I am Italian.

[@shillgates6664]

USA we ELECT in ONE year, NOT in office until NEXT. FDR elected in 1932, WHEN TAXES ROSE to 63%, FDR NOT IN OFFICE!!! He claims FDR raised the TAXES, TOTAL BS

[@carolinadama]

When people told me french people didn't speak english very well, I thought "they can't be worse than brazilians", this changed my mind.

[@5Gazto]

Except that he is one French out of millions.

[@carolinadama]

Carlos Gabriel Hasbun Comandari já vi outros já. O sotaque deles é mto forte.

[@5Gazto]

I don't speak Portuguese but I understood.

[@LittrowTaurus]

Ok his accent is bad but not his vocabulary or his fluency.

[@mayankjayaswal4907]

my friend told me donkeys don't have a lot of logical points to make, but i thought "they can't be worse than infants", this comment changed my mind.

[@Orf]

8:35 whoa

[@SangoProductions213]

Well, it makes sense that wealth inequality is drastically greater than income inequality. Wealth = about 6*income. So, if you have a difference of 2 million income, the wealth difference is 12 million.

[@Nabium]

I did a count. Thomas said "you know" 84 times.

[@NKomarov]

now count "so"

[@skunktheshrink]

I have read his book and I am here to complain about the font. /s

[@vishal8271]

french plus russian accent is really fun to hear... i have read his book and that is what probably helped me understand better...

[@johnsnow5534]

Piketty is a good historian and researcher, but he does not understand the fundamental distinction between land and capital in economics. It is in fact the increase in value of land (what houses are built on) and natural resource titles, as well as economic/commons rent from other legal privileges (intellectual property), that result in inequality... not claims on genuine physical capital. Piketty does not even isolate capital; he aggregates all assets to the point of completely blunting his analysis. The real solution to inequality can be found in "georgist" frameworks that capture economic rent for public purposes, most famously employing a land value "tax".

[@DeirdreKent]

Nate.I don't know if you saw this interview that Karl Fitzgerald did with Michael Hudson. www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/200pm-water-cooler-10614-2.html Great on Piketty. Who else of the Georgists has critiqued Piketty?

[@johnsnow5534]

Deirdre Kent Thanks. I was skimming Hudson's essay today and it looked good. Mason Gaffney wrote a great paper critiquing Piketty. It's really a shame that Gaffney got excluded. I think that might be the wrong link. I cannot find Karl. This is a summary. earthsharing.org/capital-in-any-century-a-response-to-thomas-piketty/

[@johnsnow5534]

Did you read my comment? Piketty merges land, natural resources, and other privileges/titles in with capital. It is land and other privileges (e.g., taxi medallions and intellectual property), which Piketty mischaracterizes as "capital", that are in fact responsible for growing inequality.

[@johnsnow5534]

Yes, I know, which is why he included human slaves as capital. It is an idiotic analysis in that sense. Capital itself does not generate any wealth; it is stored up labor that is wealth used by labor to aid in future production. Capital is not inherently scarce; when the return capital increases, in the absence of monopoly/privilege (as distinct from "capital"), there is nothing preventing laborers from producing more capital and lowering the return. Piketty is free to define the term however he wants, but his analysis will suffer.

[@johnsnow5534]

Matthew Nguyen-Ngo He is not an idiot, of course. But capital is not zero-sum. People make it, get paid to make it, and then it wears out with time and as it is used. It needs constant maintenance and replacement, work that laborers are paid for. I'm not saying that inequality isn't a huge problem or that wages are high enough, but Piketty *completely* fails to trace the root cause (economic/commons rent) to those results. If you are an economist, I recommend this book: www.amazon.com/After-Crash-Designing-Depression-free-Economy/dp/1444333070 If you are not an economist, I recommend these: 1) masongaffneyreader.com/ 2) www.amazon.com/Re-solving-Economic-Puzzle-Walter-Rybeck/dp/0856832812

[@merrickshamblin1182]

I would love to have access to captions. My new-mom-brain doesnt have the processing power today.

[@goosebumps6950]

If you have to force a peaceful individual to do something, then it is not a good idea. Forcing people to pay taxes is imoral, and if you're going to have a bad time if you think the way to make poor people less poor is to make rich people less rich.

[@Xez1919]

Goosebumps you don't understand Economics at all. Rich people mostly need labor to get rich, and because g

[@Tomboy2456]

Money is a closed system. Meaning there is a finite amount of it on purpose. In the reality of a closed system accumulation of wealth or money or resources is a “tax” on the others. In that you effectively make it harder for others to spend money, open businesses, etc. Money that is being kept out of circulation is money that is cannot be used. If country only had $100 and the rich take $90 and the rest goes to the economy, that means the economy only has less than $10 to spend because no one can hoard the rest. That limits potential of anyone that is not that person with the $90. Trade is limited, start up potential is limited, and economically the average worker or generator of that wealth makes less over time as more capital/wealth is stored out of the system. Capitalism is about finding the most efficient way to connect people with goods. This cannot happen when you have wealth concentration. Wealth concentration leads to power concentration and monopolies. Monopolies hinder the health and growth of an economy by not allowing competition (the free market). Proper Capitalism is based upon the idea that wealth isn’t transmitted to future generations- ie you don’t inherit it. When it is transmitted over generations and there is social inequality such as unequal access to education resources, you get a monopoly of both social and economic resources. This kind of monopoly also acts as a slower of the economy by lessening the economic potential of the future. A higher tax on the rich is a mechanism of self correction to protect free trade and innovation. Not punish the rich.

[@MetaltManiac]

I keep seeing comments hating on people that can’t understand him, but I’m not seeing the comments from the people that can’t understand him. Guess there were only a few?

[@guesswhoiwasalongtimeago9291]

Can anyone let me know if he mentioned any influence of a colonial economy in his book?

[@Tomboy2456]

guesswhoIwas alongtimeago I just got the book so haven’t read but can tell you that he is an economist which deals with money and trade goods. What you speak of is sociology which he may or may not cover but not in the way you want.

[@diegovlucena]

We need subtitles for his speech. I´m Brazilian, and speak English and French.. it doesn´t sound any of them..

[@joaoboechat7637]

What is the difference between Wealth and Income ?

[@tallestGirafffe]

Such cohesive and well-formed thoughts. Even if I don't totally agree, his professionalism is astounding.

[@shillgates6664]

Try fact checking his BS.... Gee, he claims FDR raised taxes to 63% in 1932. #1 FDR wasn't ELECTED until NOV 1932, took OFFICE in JAN 1933! #2 Congress raises TAXES, NOT POTUS #3 He says Hoover LOWERED taxes to 25%, EXCEPT that was in 1925!! COOLIDGE WAS PRESIDENT in 1925!! AND besides, SEE#2!!

[@ludocattin2788]

How is it possible to have such bad prononciation whereas the others langage skills are so good ? As a French native speaker from Switzerland, I’m not as fluent as him, but my accent is better despite the fact that I still have French accent.

[@chucku00]

C'est un pur Parigot. Deal with it. Exemple : kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKS5kmB6hrt1rc0

[@franckr6159]

My proposal: French will apologize for their accent the day Anglo-Saxons speak French only half as well as French speak English. Is that fair?

[@mauriciocastro7505]

Piketty's theory is destroyed during Hollande government. Piketty assessed Hollande on a tax reform applying higher income taxes to high income people. The result is that people started to leave the country with their money. Is the next Piketty's book talking about how to forbiden high income people to leave the country and force them to pay higher taxes?

[@vfr090]

Totally disagree, the foundations are correlative not distributive

[@aek12]

I'm an Indian and I can perfectly understand everything he is saying. Stop the hate and don't criticize the way he speaks. Listen and comprehend what he has to say. Namaste and Peace. We are one.

[@t1y_k]

Normally, I adore thick French accents but the content is too imperative here. And Piketty taught in MIT in his early career. How?

[@SALLAMAN.MP3]

How do you think the A.I.-revolution would affect these predictions? I'm curious.

[@MrPgwm97]

How is the rich going to work, if their wealth is taken away? The regulations are supposed to make the gap between rich and poor people smaller. It does not say that its going to take it all away. And for the record. The gap has continuously become bigger and bigger over the years. But if you go back like 20-30 years when it was lower, there still was a lot rich people around and people took initiative and created businesses, heck, maybe some people would argue that it was easier back then. Why do people have to see it like, it either has to be one way or another. Regulations on capitalism = everybody will become slime balls unable to work and adapting socialistic ideas = Stalin will return. You know that there do exists examples of systems more successful than the one you use. And by successful I mean that the income gaps are more equal, people living there in general is a lot happier, low unemployment and everybody has access to the same healthcare and schools. This really sounds like a system that strives for the better of all individuals in it, not just the ones who can afford it. Should not those things be something for a country that wants the best for its people. I am not saying its perfect, things can alway be improved. And did you know? The unemployment rate in such systems actually is a lot lower than in in other countries. There are also millionaires living there, and a lot of successful businesses created. I am not trying to force something on you here. But for the people thinking that systems like that is not possible. I am telling you that they exist. And theres plenty of other ideas, probably fantastic ones out in the world. Start your adventure in discovering them today, because the world is full of so much knowledge that can make your lives richer. No pure Capitalism = No freedom. In the systems I have talked about the people have a sense of feeling free to do pretty much whatever they want. And in most cases they can, because no matter where you are born, society has your back and is very happy to help push you in whatever direction you wanna go. There is also lower criminality and less people in jail. Selling food such as mistreated chicken dipped in Cl in order to waste the bacterias and feeding animals with antibiotics can be regulated and is in some cases. So no matter background, you can buy the cheapest chicken without being forced upon such things. And if you are feeling like that is taking away your freedom you are free dip the chicken in Cl after you have bought it.

[@SuperMarksman33]

They DON"T Work idiot.

[@SuperMarksman33]

I expect US viewers to struggle with his accent, they struggle with just about everything in life. Poor schooling unfortunately, not much hope for them. The sooner their empire disappears the better for the rest of us. It's for the best..

[@wade2bosh]

americans absorb immigrants and make them american and are doing fine, europe is cucking to islam

[@magister343]

Mason Gaffney's critique of Piketty is much better than Piketty's work itself.

[@elmaestroco]

Whatever you say...

[@Dgfrmxon]

A tax on land alone (as per Gaffney) is outdated and already used. Tell me, why should carbon credits be seen as fundamentally different from land? What about water rights? What about geological resources? All of these are components of the means of production (or may be soon) and exist naturally. So if we're going to divide up capital into mobile and immobile things, the latter category would clearly include much more than land.

[@magister343]

It is not a matter of mobile vs immobile, but naturally occurring resources verses products of human labor. Taxing the products or processes of labor leads to a reduced supply of goods. Taxing goods which are in fixed supply does not. Taxing the monopolization or destruction of the commons in order to provide restitution to those denied equal access is compatible with the non-aggression principle, while taxing free exchange is not. Taxes on pollution or the depletion of non-renewable resources are considered a sort of land value tax by most modern Georgists.

[@johnsnow5534]

Dgfrmxon You have no idea what you are talking about. Google "georgism".

[@Dgfrmxon]

Nate Blair ha, somewhat amusingly it was already in my browser history. The philosophy makes no distinction between renewable resources (like the conventional notion of land) and things which are depleted like Energy. This isn't surprising of a philosophy created literally before the 2nd law of thermodynamics was commonly known. Clearly our modern situation is more complicated, and Piketty himself gives significant treatment to the carbon emissions economy in his own book. The categories in a naive land tax simply don't make sense anymore. As Piketty laid out very clearly, the composition of capital today is very different than before the world wars, and our approach must also be different.

[@PBrofaith]

why is there 4 links to TED info and not even one to the speakers work???? poor show