tv Thomas Piketty Capital and Ideology CSPAN December 23, 2020 8:00pm-9:07pm EST
end the evening. kerri: thank you. >> is a bleak topic. kerri: i am smiling the whole time i don't know what is wrong with me. ben: good night everybody. bye-bye. and thank you. ... ... capital in ideology, then on this board the economics talk about later authors were becca henderson at the boston book festival. >> good afternoon, welcome to
live at lunch. i am heidi lewis the director of sales for politics it is part of our ongoing effort in addition to our regular evening laying that. thank you for being here today. our distinguished guests needs no introduction. he has the most influential voice in the fight for inequality. an audible us senate budget committee in the end it is available now for preorder.
there's a few things to note before we get started. we want to hear from you. to michael answer your questions after his call how does that work. the bottom of your screen will be joined on screen by doctor kelton will be reading from your questions and asking from the phone. the reminder. [inaudible] and now please join me in welcoming thoma thomas. [inaudible] >> hello hello hello to you all. of course i wouldn't have missed the show to be.
tree where it's going to be a different system. [inaudible] and. [inaudible] and i think that some countries and other countries can reach out could become sort of a. [inaudible] no no don't try to walk out in the street and you don't want to show them our books and we don't want to have them go to writing. [inaudible] in france or wherever lord sweden it doesn't seem to be
in you know and the admission running into a deeper problem and a true feeling of. [inaudible] in france which bc and other countries try to to gear this kind of politics. [inaudible] [inaudible] so let me stop right there so that we have time to talk let me you know continue on no no odd discharge. the book. [inaudible]
will. [inaudible] >> i love talking about audiology because ideology is something that is created really for language right? and we shape public opinion and that has become the dominant ideology. that and you mentioned ronald reagan, and a word you didn't use in your talk, at least if you did it escaped me. is the word liberal or liberalism. i wonder whether in your view your liberalism is the dominant political ideology today, and if it is would you talk about it a little bit? and does it really originate in some sense with margaret thatcher, with ronald reagan, this idea as ragan said the government is not the solution to your problem. the government is your problem. and is that sort of where we
are today with that sort of legacy and that sort of dominant ideology? three important by which i have this ideology and property basically any and all. [inaudible] it lit very extreme situations no no odd results in conversations and and i mention slavery because and you know today you can go back and see.
[inaudible] country what is. [inaudible] and they want to tell you to transfer you to. [inaudible] the people of china you should really know know what. [inaudible] [inaudible] so so that what you know. [inaudible] it affects everyone what you do in your country effects. [inaudible] the ideology known a lot.
[inaudible] now is you know that to you but. [inaudible] 1990 and i think time to reconsider we went too far and to rethink again the different known a lot. >> well so at that time we think of inequality we hear this term about the genie code and that's on a term that's familiar to the average person walking around, but would you talk a little bit about how much inequality, because if you watch this measure of inequality and i mentioned and do you have a sense of where you would like to see that gini coefficient to move i mean directionally, but how
far. change for example in the general theory, talks about inequality and he says, i'm not interested in trying to produce uproot perfect tearing society, but at the time he said the degree of incoming wealth inequality that we have today and he's writing you know and they rate depression, is to explain. we agree that we have too much incoming wealth in any. how much is too little in the sense? so in other words, i want to get a sense from you how much you'd like to drive inequality down before people are afraid that innovation will be stifled on that sort of thing. so how much inequality is sort of innocent optimal? right. >> right so take in audible
let me try to answer the question. first you might think that in audible no no i know know what society and that done i try to be explicit about what that means in actual income levels and so people can realize you know know know what known a lot and people think that there is they can't understand the connection upcoming. [inaudible] income is what you earn.
[inaudible] i tried to. [inaudible] [inaudible] what does it mean? it means that the wealth or one of the 25 or average wealth. [inaudible] you have a few minutes or something in your checking account maybe you're trying. [inaudible] [inaudible] known a lot so you can difference in what i would like you know in the system of socialism that i describe let's say that the share of.
[inaudible] would at least be 20 or 25. known a lot no no odd. [inaudible] no no odd known a lot makes a huge difference because you know when we ask you or when you are in debt and basically when your situation is like it is today no no odd you have no wealth at all and you are in debt then you want to accept anythin anything. you want to accept any wage
because you know you have to pay your bills. and so no no odd it's more than just that you can you can be you don't need to accept everything or anything you can also try to create more options. [inaudible] is actually makes a big difference and i think it makes more sense and creates structural awareness. [inaudible] no no odd it's just keeping you known a lot no no odd
known a lot i think that you often hear people talk about exactly what the drivers that produce such extreme differences in wealth and inequality. how is it that the top one tenth of 1% owned almost as much wealth as much is the bottom .9%? how do they arrive at that place? will we need to tax the people of the very top and then we can you know spent and expect to lift the incomes and increased prosperity for those the middle and out of the bottom. but other times you hear
people say instead of chasing that wealth on the backend, once it's been accumulated by the people at the very top, we need to start thinking more seriously about pre- distribution. so it's not just about robin hood and redistributing policies but pre- distribution. but that is something that you were just getting out, when you talked about property rights, different work arrangements, ownership arrangements, like you mentioned earlier intellectual property, so i wondered if you might say little bit about pre- distributive policies and the ways in which that could help antics and she likes the degree of income and wealth and inequality. >> right so as you just said. [inaudible]
no no odd but some people as a way to say we don't need this no no odd we need to both at the same time so you know it's clear if you want to. [inaudible] you need to have a way to to give you the numbers. [inaudible] 120. [inaudible] so people who make zero and in order to pay for that people who are making 1 million they would receive 600. which the stills inequality about children as you will
see. we should. [inaudible] the notion that is you should want to go to the direction which should always be again. [inaudible] the direction of wealth and extreme. [inaudible] [inaudible] in the taxation of wealth and again income should be one way to excite or the extreme topic of conversation. [inaudible]
[inaudible] and access to education and again i think that people come to set. [inaudible] blah blah blah and just wealth in audible. [inaudible] so we need to we need you know it's the same problem. [inaudible] in terms of taxation and people talk of taxation and the whole system. [inaudible] and the invention of tax rights technically work but at
least. [inaudible] what's the right label and that's what's missing in this whole. [inaudible] and at the same time. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> so there are a lot of ideologies, ideologies, political ivory allergies, and is there one that you consider the most question what. [inaudible] ten the system winners and
it can a is true ideology into huge. [inaudible] in a can be justified and i think we don' don't. [inaudible] [inaudible] i love. >> i love that was your answer, i anticipated that was going to be your answer. it is so pernicious the idea that it's so complicated for people to tell, you know why did someone become so extraordinarily wealthy?
how did that happen? because you can't see, it is not needed for everybody to see the patent laws and protections of intellectual property, trade laws, tax laws, labor. all of the things that allow the very, very rich two and a sense, take more than their fair share, over a period of decades. and, still and people come along like you, and you say we ought to think about the wealth tax, we ought to think about more progressive taxation. people say wait a minute, that's punishing success. these people, right this is what you just said, that the perception is that the people who have done extraordinarily well are and have done so because they have worked really hard to get where they are. they are, you know, have taken advantage of the opportunities that are available. anybody could have done that right? so my question to you is, and this is a question that came up and was proposed to some of
the presidential candidates in the democratic party. to get some people in trouble. and going to pose it to you and feel free to dance around it. should billionaires exist? >> the idea that the tax system or the ideal tax system that i describe is that billionaires will not really be. [inaudible] someone sells a book you know 5 billion copies and they are externally successful, because. [inaudible] no no odd. [inaudible]
are 20 million even at $20 billion. [inaudible] what i want is not like this huge wealth is that in society where or a country where i would like to just like you to have no no odd and. [inaudible] see you see a lot of people, you know, but he would have not a lot of wealth. sometimes you see no no one or turn a tear 19 years old before the tax will you know.
>> i can't hear you. >> you are muted. she can't speak so i'm going to ask you quickly there is a question asking if economics and wanting to understand your research better, what would you recommend they take a look at that's publicly available content and also what other researchers should they be paying attention to if they are interested in any quality? >> the suggestion is to read my book. it's available online