Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.26 AVERAGE
4.26 AVERAGE
Very long, don't forget to lift with your legs to read it on dead trees. But it's long for good reasons and is a fascinating read.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
How the world needs this book. It is, without a doubt, one of few books to have changed me. I pray it changes everyone else. For justice, for equality, for the end of poverty.
Sophomore slumps are the bane of writers with a prominent debut. Apparently some reviewers seem to think Piketty’s second major work falls under this category. This scattered unfair reception should come under scrutiny given the simple thought experiment of asking what the response would have been had this not been preceded by Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Had this been the case Capital & Ideology would have been hailed as the important major work that it is.
Most of the criticism hones in on the final chapter in which Piketty proposes some very high level counterbalances to the existing political/economic structure that has flourished to date and allowed gross inequality to thrive. These criticism seemingly ignore the prior 1000 pages that brilliantly lay out the ‘social, intellectual, and political history of inequality regimes’. It’s too bad that this is largely overlooked as the bulk of the book is a master class in showing just how societies across the world have evolved similar trends in political-economy: those that evolve to funnel and protect capital for a select few at the expense of the many.
Piketty’s explanation of the reasoning behind many voting against their economic interests are some of the most convincing written recently (even more so than what Ezra Klein put forward recently on ‘Why We’re Divided’): ‘The conservative revolution of the 1980s, the collapse of Soviet communism, and the development of neo-proprietarian ideology vastly increased the concentration of income and wealth in the first two decades of the 21st century. Inequality has in turn heightened social tensions almost everywhere. For want of a constructive egalitarian and universal political outlet, these tensions have fostered the kinds of nationalist identity cleavages that we see today in practically every part of the world… When people are told that there is no credible alternative to the socioeconomic organization and class inequality that exist today, it is not surprising that they invest their hopes in defending their borders and identities instead.’
With respect to Piketty’s proposals in the final chapter, it’s not as if he is harking back to a soviet style system or only putting forward a hackneyed version of “millennial socialism” (although one would think he were having only read the Economist’s book review): he openly states that these are overarching and not specific proposals to deal with these very real problems that he has so expertly laid out in the book.
One note on the audiobook – reading simultaneously the electronic version and listening to the audiobook, while a beneficial experience one needs to take into the account that the endnotes are read as part of the book, thus one has a jarring experience of having that material inserted into the main text. Net-net it would have been better had the endnotes been a separate section IMO.
Most of the criticism hones in on the final chapter in which Piketty proposes some very high level counterbalances to the existing political/economic structure that has flourished to date and allowed gross inequality to thrive. These criticism seemingly ignore the prior 1000 pages that brilliantly lay out the ‘social, intellectual, and political history of inequality regimes’. It’s too bad that this is largely overlooked as the bulk of the book is a master class in showing just how societies across the world have evolved similar trends in political-economy: those that evolve to funnel and protect capital for a select few at the expense of the many.
Piketty’s explanation of the reasoning behind many voting against their economic interests are some of the most convincing written recently (even more so than what Ezra Klein put forward recently on ‘Why We’re Divided’): ‘The conservative revolution of the 1980s, the collapse of Soviet communism, and the development of neo-proprietarian ideology vastly increased the concentration of income and wealth in the first two decades of the 21st century. Inequality has in turn heightened social tensions almost everywhere. For want of a constructive egalitarian and universal political outlet, these tensions have fostered the kinds of nationalist identity cleavages that we see today in practically every part of the world… When people are told that there is no credible alternative to the socioeconomic organization and class inequality that exist today, it is not surprising that they invest their hopes in defending their borders and identities instead.’
With respect to Piketty’s proposals in the final chapter, it’s not as if he is harking back to a soviet style system or only putting forward a hackneyed version of “millennial socialism” (although one would think he were having only read the Economist’s book review): he openly states that these are overarching and not specific proposals to deal with these very real problems that he has so expertly laid out in the book.
One note on the audiobook – reading simultaneously the electronic version and listening to the audiobook, while a beneficial experience one needs to take into the account that the endnotes are read as part of the book, thus one has a jarring experience of having that material inserted into the main text. Net-net it would have been better had the endnotes been a separate section IMO.
Five years after Capital in the Twenty-First Century dominated bestseller lists, Thomas Piketty returns with a worthy follow-up. His research spans centuries of inequality regimes, tracing where we came from in order to gather some idea of where we may heading. The book is a history of egalitarianism and the lack thereof, slavery, communism, capitalism, and everything in between.
When I first picked up this book, I felt considerably intimidated. I have been meaning to read Capital in the Twenty-First Century since it’s publication, but could never quite convince myself to dive into an almost 700-page book by an economist. I imagined I would quickly be in over my head. However, I had made a commitment to read and review Capital and Idealogy, and so I set out to create a strategy to tackle to 1,000+ page tome. The strategy was to divide the number of pages in the book by the number of days I had before the publication date, which made it very manageable.
Never had I expected Capital and Ideology to engross me the way it did. The amount of research that went into it is staggering. The book was enlightening in its analysis of past inequality regimes and their relationship to the present, but also enraging in what it revealed. For example, after Haitian independence in 1825, the country was forced to pay French slave-owners back for the loss of their “property”, for the privilege of not being enslaved. Additionally, during the period of colonization, the common argument made against the proposed emancipation of slaves was that paid labor would make it too costly to compete with rival colonial empires. This sounds suspiciously similar to arguments made today that raising wages would make it too expensive for businesses to compete. This causes me to wonder if maybe society has not advanced as far as we would like to think.
Piketty’s argument for progressive taxation, among many other methods of redistribution to create a more egalitarian society, is thorough and convincing. Although I could not possibly retain even a fraction of the facts he presents, I feel like I came away with a much more solid political position and better arguments to support it (something that will hopefully be valuable in an American presidential election year). Something I particular appreciate about Piketty is that he doesn’t lay out the myriad of problems without also presenting solutions – the final chapter of the book imagines just how modern society may move away from the present trend of further concentration of wealth and toward a more equitable future.
TL;DR: If worldwide inequality is something that gets you riled up, don’t let the size of this book scare you away. Piketty will educate and astonish you, even if it needs to be in bite-sized pieces for a month or so. And if you’d like a preview of what you may be getting into, you can always check out his Ted Talk from 2014.
Read more reviews at Book Lust.
When I first picked up this book, I felt considerably intimidated. I have been meaning to read Capital in the Twenty-First Century since it’s publication, but could never quite convince myself to dive into an almost 700-page book by an economist. I imagined I would quickly be in over my head. However, I had made a commitment to read and review Capital and Idealogy, and so I set out to create a strategy to tackle to 1,000+ page tome. The strategy was to divide the number of pages in the book by the number of days I had before the publication date, which made it very manageable.
Never had I expected Capital and Ideology to engross me the way it did. The amount of research that went into it is staggering. The book was enlightening in its analysis of past inequality regimes and their relationship to the present, but also enraging in what it revealed. For example, after Haitian independence in 1825, the country was forced to pay French slave-owners back for the loss of their “property”, for the privilege of not being enslaved. Additionally, during the period of colonization, the common argument made against the proposed emancipation of slaves was that paid labor would make it too costly to compete with rival colonial empires. This sounds suspiciously similar to arguments made today that raising wages would make it too expensive for businesses to compete. This causes me to wonder if maybe society has not advanced as far as we would like to think.
Piketty’s argument for progressive taxation, among many other methods of redistribution to create a more egalitarian society, is thorough and convincing. Although I could not possibly retain even a fraction of the facts he presents, I feel like I came away with a much more solid political position and better arguments to support it (something that will hopefully be valuable in an American presidential election year). Something I particular appreciate about Piketty is that he doesn’t lay out the myriad of problems without also presenting solutions – the final chapter of the book imagines just how modern society may move away from the present trend of further concentration of wealth and toward a more equitable future.
TL;DR: If worldwide inequality is something that gets you riled up, don’t let the size of this book scare you away. Piketty will educate and astonish you, even if it needs to be in bite-sized pieces for a month or so. And if you’d like a preview of what you may be getting into, you can always check out his Ted Talk from 2014.
Read more reviews at Book Lust.
Die Analyse von Besitzstrukturen und deren historische Gewordenheit ist wirklich hochgradig interessant. Allerdings schafft Piketty es, in einem Buch 1200 Seiten über Ungleichheit, die zwischen Frauen und Männer auf einer halben Seite abzuhandeln und nahezu "wegzureden".
Auch durch seinen "neutralen" Ideologiebegriff, neigt er zum Relativismus und nimmt seinen Analysen die Schärfe, die sie brauchen.
Auch durch seinen "neutralen" Ideologiebegriff, neigt er zum Relativismus und nimmt seinen Analysen die Schärfe, die sie brauchen.
This book is a lot to get through. Definitely more dense than Capital in the 21st Century was. There's a lot less detailed explanations of the concepts/principles that Piketty is referencing in his analysis. It's less accessible to the lay reader.
Piketty tries to do a lot of different things and analyze a lot of different datasets/options. He definitely could have split this into three books of the same size and made the work more complete. As is, there are a lot of gaps/additional research the reader will need to go out and do on their own. It's a lot of information to digest and I'll probably end up having to go back to do some follow-up reading of related literature and go back and do a re-read of some sections to make sure the information really cements itself in my mind.
That being said, I really appreciate Piketty's thoroughness. His points are well researched and he makes sure to point out when his models don't produce robust results or when the data isn't there to make significant statements. I also appreciate that he allows access to the datasets that he used and provides the code he used to run his analysis and get his results. It makes it much easier to analyze whether he's overcontrolling or if there's a lack of control for key variables that may lead to him overstating the significance of his results.
Piketty tries to do a lot of different things and analyze a lot of different datasets/options. He definitely could have split this into three books of the same size and made the work more complete. As is, there are a lot of gaps/additional research the reader will need to go out and do on their own. It's a lot of information to digest and I'll probably end up having to go back to do some follow-up reading of related literature and go back and do a re-read of some sections to make sure the information really cements itself in my mind.
That being said, I really appreciate Piketty's thoroughness. His points are well researched and he makes sure to point out when his models don't produce robust results or when the data isn't there to make significant statements. I also appreciate that he allows access to the datasets that he used and provides the code he used to run his analysis and get his results. It makes it much easier to analyze whether he's overcontrolling or if there's a lack of control for key variables that may lead to him overstating the significance of his results.
Pickett's stated goal is to challenge common rationalizations of inequality and spark a political discussions around a post-capitalistic society. He achieves that goal. In painstaking detail, he analyses available data across the globe to show that inequality is creeping higher without a clear end in sight. That's scary.
What's his recommendation - more transparent measurement of wealth, more progressive taxes (wealth + income), and steep increases at ridiculous levels of wealth and income. All fine and good - and an excellent add to the discussion around global inequality. I'd rate his book a 5/5 for ideas and its thought provocations.
However, I'll admit I browsed and skipped a significant portion of the book (maybe 1/5). I also wondered why he went to such detail in several other areas (specifically covering some topics in detail across 5+ countries, and the tri-part government in the Middle Ages). Interesting, and academically important I'd imagine, but dense for a semi-popular book.
What would I recommend? Pick it up and read the introduction. Skim Part One, read Two, skim Three (especially if you read his previous book), and read Four. Still 400+ pages but more doable.
What's his recommendation - more transparent measurement of wealth, more progressive taxes (wealth + income), and steep increases at ridiculous levels of wealth and income. All fine and good - and an excellent add to the discussion around global inequality. I'd rate his book a 5/5 for ideas and its thought provocations.
However, I'll admit I browsed and skipped a significant portion of the book (maybe 1/5). I also wondered why he went to such detail in several other areas (specifically covering some topics in detail across 5+ countries, and the tri-part government in the Middle Ages). Interesting, and academically important I'd imagine, but dense for a semi-popular book.
What would I recommend? Pick it up and read the introduction. Skim Part One, read Two, skim Three (especially if you read his previous book), and read Four. Still 400+ pages but more doable.
So if you are ever wondering why the world is the way it is and how we got here, read this book. Specifically the first part if you are into medieval history, the second part if you are into the 18th and 19th centuries, and the third part if you are into the 20th century. Then when you realize that we are on the road to more inequality than we had in the early 20th century right before WWI, and you feel very depressed, read the last part to find out how to work together to make the system better.
If you ever want to take a deep dive into our global history, unblinking, and if you ever want to really think about the status quo and look at ways to do better, economically, politically, and socially, this book is required reading.
If you ever want to take a deep dive into our global history, unblinking, and if you ever want to really think about the status quo and look at ways to do better, economically, politically, and socially, this book is required reading.