If you look at the distribution of weals, what's very striking is that 10% share as decline in the long run in acive to be 18 90 % of the totol in the nineteenth century. In europe an the us, it would be morea 60, 70%. People can disagree able te details, but tis are details as compared to this order of manitude. And i think it's very complementary to contol capital and human capital. For people whoare at zero, you know, having 102 hundred, you put you in a position, in terms of bargaining, toer vie the rest of society. It is very different.
When it comes to the enormous reduction of income inequality during the 20th century, Thomas Piketty sees politics everywhere. In his new book, A Brief History of Equality, he argues the rising equality during the 19th and 20th centuries has its roots not in deterministic economic forces but in the movements to end aristocratic and colonial societies starting at the end of the 18th century. Drawing this line forward, Piketty also contends we must rectify past injustices before attempting to create new institutions.
He joined Tyler to discuss just how egalitarian France actually is, the beginning of the end of aristocratic society, where he places himself within French intellectual history, why he’s skeptical of data from before the late 18th century, how public education drives economic development, why Georgism isn’t sufficient to address wealth inequality, the relationship between wealth and cultural capital, his proposal for a minimum inheritance, why he turned down the Legion of Honor, why France should give reparations to Haiti despite the logistical difficulties of doing so, his vision for European federalism, why more immigration won’t be a panacea for inequality, his thoughts on Michel Houellebecq’s Submission, and more.
Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video.
Recorded March 8th, 2022 Other ways to connect