Pikette's new book accuses the capitalist system of inevitably creating a
class of wealthy whose economic growth depends upon the return on capital and the poor, whose economic growth is limited to wages. This
difference would always expand.
One might be cautious with the claims of inevitability, particularly explanations that sound like repackaged dialectic materialism, but he is being taken very seriously. Several arguments have emerged, criticism of his technique of data gathering, the question of how access to the political system might skewer results
Which brings us to Schumpeter, who refined the idea of "creative destruction" to describe the difficult process of capitalistic progress. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy he explained that the rise in living standards allowed by capitalism through the process of creative destruction was going to generate an increase in the educational level of the population. Those who were educated but non-competitive would grow to hate the capitalist system, under which their merits were not recognized, and would try to seize control of educational and cultural institutions in order to teach the youth that markets do not work. Then 30 years later the political system would fall into their hands like a ripe fruit; they would be able to use the democratic process to destroy the free market, having first brain-washed the electorate.
One might be cautious with the claims of inevitability, particularly explanations that sound like repackaged dialectic materialism, but he is being taken very seriously. Several arguments have emerged, criticism of his technique of data gathering, the question of how access to the political system might skewer results
Which brings us to Schumpeter, who refined the idea of "creative destruction" to describe the difficult process of capitalistic progress. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy he explained that the rise in living standards allowed by capitalism through the process of creative destruction was going to generate an increase in the educational level of the population. Those who were educated but non-competitive would grow to hate the capitalist system, under which their merits were not recognized, and would try to seize control of educational and cultural institutions in order to teach the youth that markets do not work. Then 30 years later the political system would fall into their hands like a ripe fruit; they would be able to use the democratic process to destroy the free market, having first brain-washed the electorate.
Their success in controlling not ideas, which are uncontrollable, but
the teaching of ideas, continued Schumpeter, would inevitably lead to a
shift from a democratic, market-based system, to tyranny and poverty.
So
Pikette sees a wealthy, productive and uncaring commercial elite emerging,
Schumpeter sees an educated, unproductive and malicious governing elite emerging.
What's a guy to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment