David Harvey Reviews Capital in the Twenty-First Century

369
David Harvey Reviews Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty

There is much that is valuable in Piketty's data sets. But his explanation as to why the inequalities and oligarchic tendencies arise is seriously flawed. His proposals as to the remedies for the inequalities are naïve if not utopian.

David Harvey. 17 May 2014. Afterthoughts on Piketty's Capital.

Source: 

http://davidharvey.org/2014/05/afterthoughts-pikettys-capital/

Picture source: 

Illustration by Robert Neubecker, Chicago Tribune, https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-prj-capital-piketty-17-contradictions-harvey-20140725-story.html

I recently read a short and sharp reflection written by David Harvey on May 17, 2014, reviewing Thomas Piketty's Capitalism in the 21st Century. I translate it into Chinese. Here is the original text.

Thomas Piketty has written a book called Capital that has caused quite a stir. He advocates progressive taxation and a global wealth tax as the only way to counter the trend towards the creation of a "patrimonial" form of capitalism marked by what he dubs "terrifying" inequalities of wealth and income. He also documents in excruciating and hard to rebut detail how social inequality of both wealth and income has evolved over the last two centuries, with particular emphasis on the role of wealth. He demolishes the widely-held view that free market capitalism spreads the wealth around and that it is the great bulwark for the defense of individual liberties and freedoms. Free-market capitalism, in the absence of any major redistributive interventions on the part of the state, Piketty shows, produces anti-democratic oligarchies. This demonstration has given sustenance to liberal outrage as it drives the Wall Street Journal apoplectic.

The book has often been presented as a twenty-first century substitute for Karl Marx's nineteenth century work of the same title. Piketty actually denies this was his intention, which is just as well since his is not a book about capital at all. It does not tell us why the crash of 2008 occurred and why it is taking so long for so many people to get out from under the dual burdens of prolonged unemployment and millions of houses lost to foreclosure. It does not help us understand why growth is currently so sluggish in the US as opposed to China and why Europe is locked down in a politics of austerity and an economy of stagnation. What Piketty does show statistically (and we should be indebted to him and his colleagues for this) is that capital has tended throughout its history to produce ever-greater levels of inequality. This is, for many of us, hardly news. It was, moreover, exactly Marx's theoretical conclusion in Volume One of his version of Capital. Piketty fails to note this, which is not surprising since he has since claimed, in the face of accusations in the right wing press that he is a Marxist in disguise, not to have read Marx's Capital.

Piketty assembles a lot of data to support his arguments. His account of the differences between income and wealth is persuasive and helpful. And he gives a thoughtful defense of inheritance taxes, progressive taxation and a global wealth tax as possible (though almost certainly not politically viable) antidotes to the further concentration of wealth and power.

But why does this trend towards greater inequality over time occur? From his data (spiced up with some neat literary allusions to Jane Austen and Balzac) he derives a mathematical law to explain what happens: the ever-increasing accumulation of wealth on the part of the famous one percent (a term popularized thanks of course to the "Occupy" movement) is due to the simple fact that the rate of return on capital (r) always exceeds the rate of growth of income (g). This, says Piketty, is and always has been "the central contradiction" of capital.

But a statistical regularity of this sort hardly constitutes an adequate explanation let alone a law. So what forces produce and sustain such a contradiction? Piketty does not say. The law is the law and that is that. Marx would obviously have attributed the existence of such a law to the imbalance of power between capital and labor. And that explanation still holds water. The steady decline in labor's share of national income since the 1970s derived from the declining political and economic power of labor as capital mobilized technologies, unemployment, off-shoring and anti-labor politics (such as those of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan) to crush all opposition. As Alan Budd, an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher confessed in an unguarded moment, anti-inflation policies of the 1980s turned out to be "a very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes…what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which recreated a reserve army of labor and has allowed capitalists to make high profits ever since." The disparity in remuneration between average workers and CEO's stood at around thirty to one in 1970. It now is well above three hundred to one and in the case of MacDonalds about 1200 to one.

But in Volume 2 of Marx's Capital (which Piketty also has not read even as he cheerfully dismisses it) Marx pointed out that capital's penchant for driving wages down would at some point restrict the capacity of the market to absorb capital’s product. Henry Ford recognized this dilemma long ago when he mandated the $5 eight-hour day for his workers in order, he said, to boost consumer demand. Many thought that lack of effective demand underpinned the Great Depression of the 1930s. This inspired Keynesian expansionary policies after World War Two and resulted in some reductions in inequalities of incomes (though not so much of wealth) in the midst of strong demand led growth. But this solution rested on the relative empowerment of labor and the construction of the "social state" (Piketty's term) funded by progressive taxation. "All told," he writes, "over the period 1932-1980, nearly half a century, the top federal income tax in the United States averaged 81 percent." And this did not in any way dampen growth (another piece of Piketty's evidence that rebuts right wing beliefs).

By the end of the 1960s it became clear to many capitalists that they needed to do something about the excessive power of labor. Hence the demotion of Keynes from the pantheon of respectable economists, the switch to the supply side thinking of Milton Friedman, the crusade to stabilize if not reduce taxation, to deconstruct the social state and to discipline the forces of labor. After 1980 top tax rates came down and capital gains – a major source of income for the ultra-wealthy – were taxed at a much lower rate in the US, hugely boosting the flow of wealth to the top one percent. But the impact on growth, Piketty shows, was negligible. So "trickle down" of benefits from the rich to the rest (another right wing favorite belief) does not work. None of this was dictated by any mathematical law. It was all about politics.

Related CityReads

63.CityReads│Review of The pivot of the Four Quarters
82.CityReads│The End of Growth in the Standard of Living?83.CityReads│Watch 6,000 Years of Urbanization in 3 Minutes91.CityReads│Income inequality in Latin America in the 2010s92.CityReads│Expulsions: the Brutal Logic of Global Economy99.CityReads│The Permanent Crisis of Housing103.CityReads│What Saskia Sassen Talks about the Global City?104.CityReads│How the World Got into This Mess?105.CityReads│Winners and Losers of Globalization106.CityReads│When Local Housing Becomes a Financial Instrumen119.CityReads│How Socialist Is Chinese Economy?121.CityReads│David Harvey on the Ways of the World137.CityReads│David Harvey’s New Book Coming Soon142.CityReads│Rights and Wrongs of the Urban Age169.CityReads│Dollar Street shows how people live by photos170.CityReads│Why GDP Is Not Enough to Measure Development183.CityReads│Engels's Polemic Against the Injustices of Capitalism190.CityReads│San Francisco Bay Area: Beyond the Tech and Prosperity204.CityReads│All You Need to Know About the Global Inequality208.CityReads│Piketty on the Rising Inequality in China, 1978-2015220.CityReads│How Finance Has Changed the Nature of Cities231.CityReads│It Is the Best and the Worse of Urban Eras253.CityReads│Piketty Traces How Inequality Changes Ideology287.CityReads | A Collective Response to the Collective Dilemma of Coronavirus288.CityReads | Piketty’s Solution to Wealth Inequality
296.CityReads | Platform Capitalism’s Hidden Abode308.CityReads | Max Weber on the nature of the city312.David Harvey on the Significance of China in the Global Economy314.CityReads | Reprivatizing Warsaw by Judicial Robbery335.CityReads | Lefebvre in the Age of COVID336.CityReads | Capital in 300 Years
338.CityReads | How Green Became Good?347.CityReads | Seeing Urban Theory Through the Real Estate Lens366.CityReads | The End of Capitalism Is…Participatory Socialism368.Assetization: A New Logic of Technoscientific Capitalism（Click the title or enter our WeChat menu and reply number ）

CityReads ∣Notes On Cities

"CityReads", a subscription account on WeChat, 

posts our notes on city reads weekly. 

Please follow us by searching "CityReads"