walkinwood
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I haven't found a thread on this subject - if there is, please merge.
I've been hearing a lot of discussion about the book
Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Pickety
Here's a description from Amazon's site.
At 700 pages of dense economic data & discussions, it is unlikely that I will be able to get through it, so was hoping to get a discussion going by those who have either read it or read discussions of the book .
It would easily get political, so please respect the forum rules.
One aspect that I found interesting is his assertion that the return on capital is higher than economic growth today. The implication is that great fortunes continue to grow faster than the wealth in society & thus garners a greater and greater percentage of the overall wealth.
While there are few, if any, "great fortunes" in this forum, it seems to me that there is an implication for those who save & accumulate capital. Our capital could grow faster than overall wealth in society and we end up creeping up the relative wealth ladder. Of course, those of us who are ER'd eat away at that wealth too, so we may just stay in the same place or slip back slowly.
I just saw this discussion of the book which despite its provocative title is pretty good.
I've been hearing a lot of discussion about the book
Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Pickety
Here's a description from Amazon's site.
What are the grand dynamics that drive the accumulation and distribution of capital? Questions about the long-term evolution of inequality, the concentration of wealth, and the prospects for economic growth lie at the heart of political economy. But satisfactory answers have been hard to find for lack of adequate data and clear guiding theories. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty analyzes a unique collection of data from twenty countries, ranging as far back as the eighteenth century, to uncover key economic and social patterns. His findings will transform debate and set the agenda for the next generation of thought about wealth and inequality.
At 700 pages of dense economic data & discussions, it is unlikely that I will be able to get through it, so was hoping to get a discussion going by those who have either read it or read discussions of the book .
It would easily get political, so please respect the forum rules.
One aspect that I found interesting is his assertion that the return on capital is higher than economic growth today. The implication is that great fortunes continue to grow faster than the wealth in society & thus garners a greater and greater percentage of the overall wealth.
While there are few, if any, "great fortunes" in this forum, it seems to me that there is an implication for those who save & accumulate capital. Our capital could grow faster than overall wealth in society and we end up creeping up the relative wealth ladder. Of course, those of us who are ER'd eat away at that wealth too, so we may just stay in the same place or slip back slowly.
I just saw this discussion of the book which despite its provocative title is pretty good.