Econdiscussion
  • Home
  • Articles
  • About Me

Articles

“Thomas Piketty’s “Capital” summarised in four paragraphs” – The Economist

13/2/2015

1 Comment

 
Synopsis: A summary of “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty

Click here to read the original article.
Discussion: This article summarises “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, by Thomas Piketty, a book that discusses past inequality trends and predicts future ones.

Mr. Piketty, along with a handful of other economists, has gathered data from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution about the change in the concentration of income and wealth. During the 18th and 19th centuries in Western Europe, wealth inequality was rampant. National income was less than private wealth, the latter of which was concentrated in the hands of the elite few. Even when industrialisation increased the wages of the working class, this problem persisted. When WW1, WW2 and the Great Depression hit, the inequality of income and wealth reduced, due to high taxes, inflation and bankruptcies. After these shocks faded, the same problems are creeping back, so much so that the importance of wealth is reaching levels pre-WW2.

From here, Piketty outlines general patterns between wealth and growth. He explains that wealth grows faster than economic output in general, which represents in the expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate). Ceteris paribus, “faster economic growth will diminish the importance of wealth in a society”, and the same vice versa. “Demographic change that slows growth will make capital more dominant”. However, it is only rapid growth or government intervention that will disperse the concentration of wealth, and prevent it from entering the patrimonial situation Karl Marx was worried about.

Mr. Piketty ends by saying that governments should step in now and impose taxes on wealth, lest it leads to soaring inequality or political instability.

Critics have question Piketty’s assertion that the future will resemble the past, arguing that returns to wealth decreases as the amount of wealth increases. They also add that today’s generations come upon wealth by working for it, rather than through inheritance. Furthermore, they question the feasibility of Mr. Piketty’s recommendations to governments, stating that they are ideologically, rather than economically, driven. Regardless, Piketty’s book as received major critical acclaim for its data gathering and analysis.

Key terms:

1) Welfare state: According to Brittanica, this is where the government plays an active role in taking care of the citizens of a state.

2) Return on wealth: This is the income from investing in wealth.

Context:

It is worth discussing Piketty’s idea of inequality. He discusses how r > g in general. He states that if the economy grows faster, then the importance of wealth will reduce, and if the economy grows slower, the importance of wealth will increase. This concept is illustrated in the diagrams below:
Picture
Picture
If the rate of return to wealth increases faster than the growth rate, then inequality increases. In other words, Piketty claims that inequality = r-g. Whether this is true or not will be discussed in another blog post.

In the introductory blog post I had posted about this inequality series, one of the questions I said that would be discussed is the link between growth and inequality. According to Piketty, faster growth reduces inequality.
1 Comment

“How Financiers Turned Back Forces of Equality” – Financial Times

5/2/2015

0 Comments

 
Synopsis: A short timeline and discussion of income inequality.

Click here to read the original article.
Discussion:

This article discusses the historical trends of income inequality in different western countries, as well as the causes of the change in trends.

In the 1920s, the countries whose citizens were mostly immigrants had less inequality in income (perhaps because they were all equally poor?). Such countries included the US., Australia and Canada. Conversely, countries like Germany, whose citizens in general were not immigrants, had higher levels of inequality.

During the next 50 years, the share of the top 1 percent pretty much halved globally, and the share of the top 0.1 percent fell even more. This is because governments introduced harsh progressive taxes to encourage equality.

In the 1970s, Germany still had usually high inequality in comparison to other countries. This could be because entrepreneurs were well remunerated, while working-class citizens were not.

Post 1970, inequality rose very sharply worldwide. In France and Germany, the share of the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent stayed stagnant. In the US, it rose to levels higher than in the 1920s. In the UK, it rose as well, though it did not reach the level of the 1920s.

The reasons why it rose so sharply in the US, and the UK to a lesser extent, are:

1) Corporate executives were remunerated highly, higher than working-class citizens.

2) Doctors and lawyers are paid very highly. In other countries, public healthcare and limited role for litigation prevented this from happening.

3) Finance professionals are experiencing an increase in the top 1 percent (from 8% to 14%) and in the top 0.1 percent (from 11% to 18%). Countries resisting what the author calls ‘financialisation’, such as France and Germany, are not experiencing such drastic increases in inequality.

Key terms:

A progressive tax is, according to Wikipedia, where “the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases”. In other words, as the income of a person increases, they pay a higher share of income as taxes. The most common example of a progressive tax is tax on income. The reason why progressive taxes are “forces of equalization”, as the author says, is because in real terms, the amount being taken from a person for taxes increases as their income does.


There are two other main types of taxes:

1) Proportional tax, where the tax rate is stagnant regardless of the taxable base. An example of this is a poll tax, as the tax rate is fixed.

2) Regressive tax, where the tax rate increases as the taxable base decreases. An example of this is a sin tax, such as on cigarettes. The tax is usually a flat rate. For example, if the tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1, for a person earning $100, this represents 1% of his income, but for a person earning $200, this represents only 0.5% of his income.

Context:

Income should not be confused with wealth, which is accumulated assets. This article specifically talks about income inequality, not wealth inequality. In other words, income is a flow concept and wealth is a stock concept. For example, you could be wealthy with many inherited assets, but not have year-to-year income. Conversely, you could have a high yearly income but not have much of accumulated assets. 
0 Comments

inequality series

5/2/2015

0 Comments

 
For the next few posts, I will focus on inequality.
 
Inequality has emerged as a key concern for people across the world. In the US , rising inequality is likely to be a main point of debate in the next year’s presidential election. In China , although millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 30 years, the gini coefficient has risen rapidly, raising concerns about the affordability of many things for the common people.
 
Last year’s surprise bestselling book, “Capital in the 21st Century” by Thomas Piketty, also focused on measuring and explaining the long-term trends in inequality in wealth.

I will try to examine some evidence related to inequality. I also will discuss the link between inequality and growth, i.e. whether higher growth leads to higher/lower inequality, and, what is perhaps a harder question, whether higher inequality leads to higher/lower growth.
0 Comments

“Big, Bad Amazon” – The Economist

2/2/2015

0 Comments

 
Synopsis: Does Amazon have too much market power?

Click here to read the original article.
Discussion:

This article discusses the market power Amazon has. Paul Krugman is under the opinion that, as a monopsonist, “Amazon [has the ability to]… systematically [disadvantage] books with a particular political bent.” Mr. Krugman gives the book “Sons of Wichita” as an example of a book that is being disadvantaged in that particular way. In retaliation, the author argues that Amazon is not a monopoly in the U.S., citing Barns & Noble as a potential competitor. However, Krugman argues that it is not on the bookselling front that all Amazon’s power is concentrated: it is on the ‘buzz creating’ front, i.e. the ability to create buzz about a book. Once again, the author dismisses this point, saying that nobody hears about books through Amazon; it can neither create nor kill buzz on a large-scale. For these reasons, the author argues that Amazon is not as dangerous as others claim it is; its market power itself is not as abundant as it is portrayed to be.

Key words:

1. Monopsony: One big buyer for many sellers

2. Anti-trust action: Anti-monopoly law

Context:

1. R.A. (Ryan Arvent), the author, mentions Jean Tirole’s work on regulating monopolies. More about this can be read here.

2. A point of my own that I want to add that supports Krugman (although I agree with Arvent) is that Amazon might get some of its power from brand loyalty, as well as the fact that customers are accustomed to Amazon. Just like many people are hesitant to switch from Apple to Microsoft (or vice versa) because they may know one better, people may be hesitant to switch from Amazon to Barnes & Noble. In other words, although Arvent points out that there are many other online bookstores, just because consumers can switch, it does not mean that they will.

3. There is a similar famous antitrust law case in 2001 where the Department of Justice in the United States of America accused Microsoft Corporation of abusing its monopoly power. It claimed that Microsoft used its power to bundle Internet Explorer to the Microsoft Windows operating system, which may have been what caused Internet Explorer to be so successful. In the end, the Department of Justice required Microsoft to share its programme with other search engines. Wikipedia has a good synopsis of this case.
0 Comments

    Categories

    All
    Abenomics
    Adam Smith
    Adverse Selection
    Ageing
    Amazon
    Arrows
    Arthur Okun
    Asset
    Asymmetric Information
    Ben Bernanke
    Booms And Busts
    Braess' Paradox
    Brazil
    Bretton Woods
    Brexit
    Bubble
    Bull Market
    Business Cycle
    Capital Control
    Capital Flows
    Capital In The Twenty First Century
    Capital In The Twenty-First Century
    Carry Trade
    Causation
    Central Bank
    China
    Christopher Sims
    Classical Economics
    Consumption
    Counter-cyclical
    CPI
    Creative Destruction
    Crisis
    Daron Acemoglu
    David Cameron
    David Ricardo
    Debt
    Debt-to-GDP
    Deflation
    Deleverage Cycle
    Demography
    Devaluation
    Developing Economies
    Development
    Diffusion
    Diminishing Returns
    Dominant Strategy
    Dominated Strategy
    ECB
    Economic History
    Economic Theory
    Equality
    Equitity
    Equity
    Equity Investments
    EU
    Exchange Rate
    FDI
    Fed
    Federal Reserve
    Finance
    Financial Crisis
    Financial Instability Hypothesis
    Financial-instability Hypothesis
    Financial Times
    Fiscal Multiplier
    Fiscal Policy
    Fixed Exchange Rate
    Fleming
    Floating Exchange Rate
    Free Market
    Free Trade
    Freshwater
    Game Theory
    GDP
    George Akerlof
    Germany
    GFC
    Gini Coefficient
    Global Financial Crisis
    Globalization
    Government Intervention
    Government Spending
    Great Depression
    Growth
    Heckscher-Ohlin
    Helene Rey
    Hyman Minsky
    ICOR
    Illiquid
    Immigration
    Income
    Inequality
    Inflation
    Infrastructure
    Innovation
    Interest Rates
    Investment
    Italy
    James Robinson
    Janet Yellen
    Japan
    Jean Tirole
    J.M. Keynes
    John Nash
    Keynesian Economics
    Labor
    Lawrence Summers
    Leverage
    Lindau
    Liquid
    Malaysia
    Managed Exchange Rate
    Mario Draghi
    Matteo Renzi
    Michael Spense
    Minsky Moment
    Mixed Strategy
    Monetary Policy
    Monopoly
    Monopsony
    Moral Hazard
    Mundell
    Mundell-Fleming Trilemma
    Nash
    Nash Equilibrium
    Nigeria
    Nobel
    Nobel Laureates
    Nobel Prize
    Paul Krugman
    Paul Samuelson
    Perfect Information
    Phillips Curve
    Politics
    Poverty Traps
    Principal Agent Problem
    Prisoner's Dilemma
    Productivity
    Protectionism
    QE
    Qualitative Easing
    Quantitative Easing
    Redistribution
    Regulation
    Retrenching
    Rich
    Risk
    Robert Shiller
    Saltwater
    Saving
    Secular Stagnation
    Shiller
    Shinzo Abe
    Signaling
    Stakeholders
    Stolper-Samuelson Theorem
    Strategy
    Subsidies
    Tariff
    Taxation
    Taxes
    The Economist
    The Market For Lemons
    Theory Of Comparative Advantage
    Thomas Piketty
    Total Factor Productivity
    Trade
    Trilemma
    UK
    Unemployment
    U.S.
    USD
    Wage Benefits
    Wages
    Wealth
    Wealth Effect
    Wolfgang Stolper
    WTO
    Yuan

    Author

    JANANI DHILEEPAN
    A gap year student trying to explore real-world economics

    Archives

    May 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.