Is this worth reading?
Yes.
Next question.
>>335819
I still dont know why Inequality is a bad thing exactly. He really goes on and on, on how inequality happens, but not on why it matters.
>>336244
Because more inequality leads to less social stability
>>335819
Of course. You should read both the Capital, which influenced socialists and the Wealth of Nations, which influenced capitalists.
>>336247
and a huge dependence on the state on the redistribution of wealth is supposed to bring social stability?
Not really worth it. It's like reading a 6 hundred page book about the 100 metres which concludes Usain bolt wins because he is faster than the other sprinters
>>336244
It's bad for bunisses, if the bourgeoisie, le 1% for americans, keeps being greedy a revolution is inevitable and I'm not even communist.
>>336244
because people genuinely deserve social stability and confirmation of livelihood and welfare
>>336259
What a retard.
>>336368
> a revolution is inevitable
No it's not.
>>336244
There's material fucking everywhere on that
>less consumer spending
E.G., a billionaire only needs one pillow to sleep on.
>less social cohesion
There's a great TED talk on this (I know, TED is pretty stupid), but the information is good. Societies with more equality correlate more to overall health and happiness than less equal societies, independent of GDP
In other words, it's much easier to accept your situation and work together when you're only earning $10,000 if the richest man is only earning $50,000. It's much harder if he's earning $150,000,000.
Don't ask me why health correlates. Literally average age of death correlates to it.
>>337498
But that's an argument for moderate inequality, not for complete equality.
That said, it's absolutely impossible to expect the owners of large business to have profit comparable to someone's salary, might as well go full commie.
But then again, is concentrating - more - in the hands of the state a real solution?
>>337509
Nobody is talking about full communism ffs
Piketty is just proposing some measures to reduce increasing inequality
>>337832
That's not what I said dummy
>>335819
It's a good read, lets people know the economy is fucked.
Social democrat solutions leave a lot to be desired and make the invocation of marx in the title somewhat laughable.
>>336261
Yes
>>338006
So?
>>339421
Maybe, but it'll bring economic instability
>>335819
No. you might as well just read a summary of it. That's what everyone else did.
>>335819
This might be worth reading first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century#Criticism
Yes, best analysis of capitalism desu
Even if you're not a socialist it's a good way to understand how capitalism functions and will help you analyze economics in the past and future
>>336261
Yes, if people are well fed and can enjoy life while not working 60 hours a week at 2 jobs they'll be less likely to riot or die malnourished.
Do you think inner city blacks are just naturally inclined to violence or do you think riots are caused by people being poor, overworked and hungry
>>339497
how do you explain recent stockholm riots, then?
>>339451
Well done.
I've bought two copies and shall both consecutively. The second copy is yours, but seeing as I cannot send it to you - alas, I do not have an address - I must stand in on your behalf.
Thank you for this opportunity.
>>339523
Europeans don't put up with the police shooting people for no good reason.
>>336244
Thomas Piketty is a French intellectual educated in a "grande école". That's the kind of people who staff up the bureaucracies that are set as the government step in to fight inequality, they are the ones who manage the money that is taken by taxes, etc. So it is in his direct interest to promote economic inequality as a great evil.
>>339549
Posterity shall hear of this.
>>339563
Thanks for the wikipedia idea
>>339528
>>339497
That's ironic because inner city blacks are extremely dependent on the state for wealth redistribution.
Following Piketty's solutions would create a society where everyone who is not a well-connected businessman or a bureaucrat becomes just like them.
>>335819
It costs €29 here
It's ironical that can't afford a book about increasing inequaliy
>>339523
>Implying there aren't deep social problems and economic distribution problems, if you can't get a good job it doesn't matter that you have welfare.
>>339574
The amount of aid someone gets from the government is paltry, if you're getting 19000 a year you're still shit poor. If you're shit poor you're gonna be unhappy and you're gonna want to riot.
It's not that they're lazy and happy to sit around all day enjoying the nothing they can afford. Most people would work if there was opportunity to work and make 40 K a year
Stop with this Sweden is socialist meme
>>339563
>London School of Economics
>MIT
>Mathematician before switcing into economics
I think you are confusing ENS with ENA, and disgarding his background in schools outside of France.
>>339563
Nassim Taleb raises this point, he also points how France, a country where there has been great efforts in state-led fight against inequality, actually has a more permanent wealthy class than the U.S, in other words, if you look at a list of French billionaires from the 1980s and a list from now, it's still the same people, while in the U.S. the names have changed.
That should be obvious, as you try to use the state to fight inequality, you create more difficulties for small-businessmen than for well-connected big business. Sweden, which is considered an example in redistribution, has a single family, the Wallenbergs, controlling one-third of the GDP. That's why George Soros is so sympathetic to supposedly "socialist" policies in the Western world, by the way. He knows he won't be the one getting hurt.
Of course, when you analyze wealth inequality focusing on "capital" instead of individual capitalists, you lose that vision, it looks like it's the same people getting rich over and over. That's a common tactic for leftists, create an abstraction that hides reality, like Marx writing a book about capitalism in the XIXth century without mentioning the Rothschilds.
>>339604
People do not riot for economic reasons or inequality, they riot because their culture condones it.
Case in point, I live in Brazil, and though this is one of the most unequal countries in the world, we have never experienced a revolution, or even a major riot.
Inner-city blacks riot because their culture is confrontational, while Brazilian black culture is not.
>>339620
Socialism means taking the means of production, not creating a welfare state. There are very few billionaires that go bust. The reason the US has so many new billionaires is because we were at the center of the internet boom and the first people in computers were Americans for the most part
>>339630
>they riot because their culture condones it
They don't riot because your government is more willing to slaughter people historically for rioting.
