home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |

Finishing School for Tomorrow's Ruling Class Let's Look on the Bright Side

print view

Picking on Piketty

by Christopher Chantrill
May 06, 2014 at 12:00 am


ON SUNDAY I saw a student production of Vaclav Havel’s adaptation of The Beggar’s Opera at the University of Washington. And guess what one of the whores was reading? Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century of course. An honest working girl, she wasn’t too impressed with the inequality thing.

Here’s what she was complaining about. It’s right on page one of the Introduction.

When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based.

Inequality? Hey, a girl’s got to get a return on her capital assets while she’s still got them.

Speaking as a middling sort of capitalist, with my own particular assets, I have to say I agree with her. And anyway, where do I find this mythical beast called “rate of return?”

In the first place, your average mom-and-pop capitalist is getting zero rate of return on their bank savings account, courtesy of lefty-liberals in the Federal Reserve System. For the rest of us there is no “rate of return;” there are only agonizing choices. In Obama’s America you can put your money in a municipal bond, but what good will that be when the government employee pension crisis hits? You can put money in so-called momentum stocks like Amazon and Facebook, but who knows how long the market-momentum gods will smile on them? You can put money in dividend stocks like utilities and consumer goods, but who knows when liberals will kick them in the teeth for burning coal or causing cancer?

Thomas Piketty wants us to think that the rate of return on capital is something that the wealthy manage to impose upon the rest of us, a consequence of their economic power. But the truth is that every capitalist, from the mom-and-pop saver to the most corrupt crony capitalist, is placing a bet on the future.

Before we euthanize working girls and middling capitalists, lefties, let’s deal with the government-bailed-out banksters and crony capitalists.

Is capital’s share of national income going up? Maybe that’s because of the crony capitalists’ political connections. Or maybe it’s because capitalists really add value to the economy.

That’s a thought: capitalists actually contributing to our income and wealth!

But which is right? Are the capitalists powerful oppressors that need to be curbed or ingenious creators amazing new products and services?

It all comes down to faith.

Like Marx, Piketty seems to believe that the modern achievement is a accumulation of things like capital. Completely wrong, writes Deirdre McCloskey, who has a different faith.

We say that the modern world got rich by (at a minimum) 1500% percent compared with 1800 not, as the sadly mistaken Accumulators say, because of capital accumulation, or exploitation of the third world, or the expansion of foreign trade. The world got rich by inventing cheap steel, electric lights, marine insurance, reinforced concrete, coffee shops, saw mills, newspapers, automatic looms, cheap paper, modern universities, the transistor, cheap porcelain, corporations, rolling mills, liberation for women, railways.

In the Preface (pdf) to the third volume of her “Bourgeois Era” books due out in 2015, McCloskey expands on this.

The point is to revalue the middle class, the middling sort, the entrepreneur and the merchant... The bourgeoisie, though despised after 1848 by the artists and intellectuals, led the Great Enrichment, improving the lives of poor and rich together with such ideas as the electric motor or the land-grant university. The technical and institutional ideas were made possible by a new liberty and dignity for commoners, among them the middling sort.

George Gilder writes something similar in Knowledge and Power, as I note in “A Critique of Social Mechanics.” Modern business “is based on surprise, a surprising new idea or a surprising new product that emerges from the background of noise” and changes the world.

But what about Piketty’s argument that a “high rate of return on capital” generates “arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities?” Well, I’m still reading the book, and blogging about it. So stay tuned for more at americanmanifesto.org.

But here’s a thought. If Deirdre McCloskey is right and the modern world has really got rich by 1500% compared with 1800, how arbitrary and unsustainable can this inequality be? If the poor get Obamaphones this year, it’ll be Obama smartphones next year.

Marx was wrong when he prophesied that capitalism would immiserate the workers. Lincoln Steffens was wrong when he said he’d seen the future in the Soviet Union and it worked. Liberals were wrong when they said the War on Poverty would end poverty in America. Now we have Thomas Picketty with a new lefty plan to tax the rich. You feelin’ lucky, Tom?

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.

Buy his Road to the Middle Class.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.



What Liberals Think About Conservatives

[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. “Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists,” she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican

US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

Taking Responsibility

[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050

Society and State

For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008

Socialism equals Animism

Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit


[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values

Responsible Self

[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.

Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

Racial Discrimination

[T]he way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District


A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy

Physics, Religion, and Psychology

Paul Dirac: “When I was talking with Lemaître about [the expanding universe] and feeling stimulated by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion. However [Georges] Lemaître [Catholic priest, physicist, and inventor of the Big Bang Theory] did not agree with me. After thinking it over he suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.”
John Farrell, “The Creation Myth”


Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization

presented by Christopher Chantrill

Data Sources  •   •  Contact