Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
New submitter rvw sends word that Bill Gates has posted a review of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, an acclaimed book by economist Thomas Piketty about how income equality is a necessary result of unchecked capitalism. Gates, one of the most successful capitalists of our time, agrees with Piketty's most important conclusions. That said, he also finds parts of the book to be flawed and incomplete, but says Piketty has started vital debate on these issues. Gates writes,
Yes, some level of inequality is built in to capitalism. As Piketty argues, it is inherent to the system. The question is, what level of inequality is acceptable? And when does inequality start doing more harm than good? That's something we should have a public discussion about, and it's great that Piketty helped advance that discussion in such a serious way. ... I agree that taxation should shift away from taxing labor. It doesn't make any sense that labor in the United States is taxed so heavily relative to capital. It will make even less sense in the coming years, as robots and other forms of automation come to perform more and more of the skills that human laborers do today. But rather than move to a progressive tax on capital, as Piketty would like, I think we'd be best off with a progressive tax on consumption.
We charge the people doing the labor (income tax) and then *also* charge them on consumption? The people least able to pay?
This will end well.
a progressive tax on consumption
Not sure how that's going to promote demand for goods and services. It looks to me like a recipe for rewarding not-spending. And not-spending is exactly what's sucking the liquidity out of the economy now, locking it up in the vaults of the wealthy, who refuse to spend at all unless it means that they wind up with ever more in their vaults, and construction of the (was this term ever more apt?) vicious cycle is complete.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Brilliant idea. That way, instead of spending their money on things that people have to make, the wealthy will invest in owning a larger share of the world by way of financial instruments which produce more income.
This will, obviously, reduce inequality.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
It's the result of a lot of things, really. Income inequality was the result of unchecked feudalism, unchecked mercantilism, unchecked slavery, unchecked command economies, and even a lot of "traditional" economies.
Unfortunately, income equality is not a natural state of societies. It can be a goal for a system, but even that's not a guarantee.
Inequality in itself is not harmful. What difference does it make to me that someone in Ohio is driving a Rolls Royce while all I have is a Nissan?
The harm is in politicians stoking the flames of jealousy and trying to convince me that the person in the Rolls got themselves a higher standard of living by pushing me down, which is rubbish.
Steve Jobs didn't get rich by *taking* money from us. He got rich by giving us things we wanted more than the cost of a cellphone contract (and the same thing goes for Bill Gates). No zillionaire has the power to take anything from you - whether it be Warren Buffet or the Koch brothers. Only government has that power, and they most certainly use it.
Without a middle class, there is no real economy. If our current system guarantees the destruction of the middle class, then our current system guarantees the destruction of the economy (the economic experiment over the last 30 years seems to support this hypothesis). Thus, we must tweak our system so that it does not destroy the middle class.
In the words of Henry Ford, "I pay my workers well so that they can afford to buy my cars."
Was a video I saw that addressed the degrees of this issue. That is, they started showing a graph of what people polled thought income inequality looked like in terms of relative distribution of wealth. They showed what people thought it should be, people of different ends of the political spectrum. Then they showed what people thought was a healthy or acceptable distribution..... and then the real one.
The thing is, everybody seems to agree that some inequality is ok. Everybody seems to agree that there is more inequality than there should be. Everybody also underestimates how much inequality there is, showing the real numbers were as far removed from what people thought it was as what they thought it was was from what they thought was ideal.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I have yet to see someone actually explain why income inequality by itself is a bad thing.
I'm not talking about situations where there is corruption, like certain African-region dictators with gold plated limos while their people die on the streets from starvation, or more common, politicians being bought off by companies and individuals.
Take two people, put them in a room, one guy has a net worth of $100 and the second has a net worth of $5000. What harm is the second person doing? We're talking about a factor of 50x here. Take away the room, let them live their lives, what harm is that second guy perpetuating? Make the difference a factor of 1000 or a 1,000,000, and where do we see him doing harm?
When I hear folks talking about this, what I really hear is, "since one person doesn't need that much money to live, the government should take the difference and use it to make MY life better,"
That doesn't sound like harm to me, but is that what the "harm" is being defined as?
Take our thought experiment above and change the parameters to match Bill's future view; now we live in a world where robots do everything, no one has to work, and all their actual needs (not wants) are taken care of. What harm does it now do to have a pauper and a billionaire?
Someone explain this harm to me, because from where I'm standing in a first world country, it seems to be just so much complaining over sour grapes.
OK, here's your answer, as simplified as I can make it based on your premise:
Because the guy with the net worth of $100 is unable to contribute to the economy. He is too poor to pay taxes, he's too poor to buy food for his family and therefore has to rely on government help to feed his children.
Meanwhile, the rich guy with the net worth of $5000 has used his immense wealth to manipulate politics and has a sneaky accountant, so he also pays practically no taxes, compared to the middle class.
So it's up to you and me, the guys with a net worth of let's say $250, to help out the poor guy with the net worth of $100. But that $5000 guy is cutting our jobs and shipping them to india, so we have an ever shrinking population of $250 net worth people, and a growing segment of $100 net worth people, since the only jobs available are minimum wage.
Following me so far? With less and less people buying socks and shoes and food, and paying taxes, the economy shrinks. Meanwhile the very rich do not go to walmart and buy 10,000 pairs of jeans, so their contributions to the overall economy are minor compared to their immense wealth.
Please see the documentary "Inequality for all", you can find it on netflix streaming, and it will describe it a way that everyone can understand, even Fox News watchers.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If we're going to be pedantic about words, we also need to distinguish a "free market" from "capitalism". Too often self-identified proponents of "capitalism" are really just proponents of free markets, and use "capitalism" as if all it means is "free market".
A free market an economic arrangement where all exchanges are made voluntarily, without coercion.
Capitalism is an economic arrangement where those who own capital can extract surplus value from the labor of those who don't own such capital.
Both contemporary opponents and proponents of either assume that each entails the other:that without some kind or coerced redistribution, those with more capital will exploit those with less, and the only choice is between those two evils. But in principle the two concepts can come apart. The hard question is how.
My proposed answer is that what allows a free market (good) to become capitalism (bad) is the legal enforcement of any contract where someone allows the temporary use of their capital in exchange for a permanent transfer of some other capital. In other words, rent, including the rent on money that we call "interest", or in general, to use a more archaic but etymologically illustrative term, "usury": the charging of a fee for usage. Such contracts allow those who have more capital than they need for their personal use, who can thus afford to lend it out, to extract value from those who need to use more capital than they have, who thus have to borrow it. This creates an "uphill" flow of wealth from those who already have less of it to those who already have more of it.
In the absence of such contracts of usury, the only way someone with more wealth than is personally useful to them to get some value for it would be to sell it off. And, as is already the case, the only thing that those without enough wealth can trade for anything of value is their labor. The natural effect you would expect, in a free market without usury, would be that those with more capital would benefit from it by trading it for labor from others, gaining luxury (not needing to labor themselves) at the cost of their capital; and the laborers, in turn, would gradually accrue capital in exchange for their labor, and this free trade of capital for labor would gradually equalize the capitalists and the laborers, until each had enough capital for their own use, and had to labor upon it themselves. Some natural variation in wealth would still exist due to the natural differences in productivity of different people, but there would be no run-away concentration of wealth independent of productive activity that we have now.
Introduce usury into that system though, as we have now, and suddenly those with more wealth can lend their excess to those with less wealth, for a fee, which fee they can then use to pay for the labor of those who have less, who in turn are having to trade their labor to pay the fees for the use of the wealth of those who have more. In this way, usury creates an "upward" flow of wealth canceling the natural "downward" flow that a free market would be expected to have, and allowing those with more wealth to live perpetually off the labor of those with less wealth, without ever having to actually lose any wealth in exchange. It's not an insurmountable effect, it is still possible for the poor to accrue wealth or the rich to lose it all, but you have to be exceptionally competent or exceptionally incompetent to do each, respectively. For an average person, having wealth makes it easy to keep and gain wealth, and lacking it makes that exceedingly difficult. And I think we have usury — rent and interest — to blame for that. Without it, free markets would be inherently "socialist", as in for the public good, as one would naturally expect.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."