The Algebraist Iain M. Not part of Banks's Culture sequence, although it's a space opera which overlaps in various ways with the Culture universe. In terms of economics, it's notable for its reputation currency kudos used by the Dwellers.
Non-home Real Estate Indeed, it is in wealth statistics that the real social divide stands out. He is interested mainly in the capital-income wealth-income ratio.
As noted above, he uses capital and wealth interchangeably, which has led to deserved criticism by heterodox economists. His book is about the distribution of societal output and the wealth of everyone, but especially those who own the nonhuman means of production used to produce this output.
Piketty has no notion of capital as an exploitative social relationship. Instead, for him capital has an existence simply as private wealth he does write about public capital, but this is an insignificant component of total social wealth. By, in effect, objectifying capital, considering it apart from the social relationship embedded within it, he marks himself well within the economic mainstream.
Wealth, in his view, can generate income whether it is in the form of shares of stock in the largest corporations, a small apartment building, or a government bond. And wealth of any kind can provide enormous benefits to its owners.
Your capital-income or wealth-income ratio is four. He does this for countries, using the data that he and his associates have painstakingly accumulated over many years of examining tax and various other public records. For example, the boom in Japanese real estate and stock prices in the s caused the ratio to rise, and the collapse of these bubbles made it fall precipitously.
However, what he is really interested in is the long-run trend in the ratio. He shows that throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and right up until the First World War, wealth in most rich nations equaled six to seven years of national income. In the United States it was the equivalent of only about four to five years of income, for reasons that we will look at shortly.
Then, over the next thirty years, the shocks of two world wars and the Great Depression caused a marked decline in the wealth-income multiple, to about two to four years. In some nations, notably in Europe, much private enterprise was nationalized after the Second World War and progressive taxation funded social welfare programs, and these factors helped keep the wealth-income ratio low.
However, beginning in the mid—s, capital made a remarkable comeback, and the ratio began to climb, and is now approaching the level that existed at the start of the First World War. Public capital has been privatized and political regimes throughout the world have been very well disposed toward the interests of wealth-holders.
Piketty finds that in the rich capitalist countries, the trend has been, and will most likely continue to be, toward relatively low growth rates and high savings rates or, in Marxian terms, a high rate of surplus generation.
This tells us that the capital-income i. Low growth rates, he contends, will be the consequence mainly of low population growth rates, accentuated by low rates of technological change.
He makes the point that nations with rapidly growing populations and high economic growth will be ones in which wealth accumulated in the past will not have as great an impact on how those societies operate as those in which these two types of growth are low.
In dynamic economies, there is a churning within the wealth and income distributions, meaning that the capital-income ratio will be lower than in those where this is not true.
From this, he derives his famous inequality: Piketty shows that over very long periods of time, r has in fact been greater than g; in fact, this is the normal state of affairs in capitalist economies.
Only during the long crisis, brought on by war and depression and the aftermath when social welfare policies helped keep r low and g high, was this not the case. Increasing polarization of society, in terms of the two main social actors, workers and owners of capital, is a very likely prospect. To make matters worse, those with the largest amounts of capital wealth almost always get a higher rate of return on their wealth than do those with lesser amounts.
Piketty gives a telling example of this by looking at the returns garnered by the endowments of U. He finds that there is a direct and significant correlation between the size of the endowment and the rate of return on it.Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward: ().
Bellamy's utopian novel-- it's the old-fashioned kind you might charitably call "heavy on worldbuilding" -- deals extensively with economics. Bellamy advocates an egalitarian command economy, with everyone taking an equal share of non-transferable credit.
Looking Backward is a utopian science fiction novel by Edward Bellamy. The book tells the story of Julian West, a young American who, towards the end of the 19th century, falls into a deep, hypnosis-induced sleep and wakes up one hundred and thirteen years later. WHAT I'VE BEEN READING Comments on books from Bob Corbett THE YEAR Lester, Bellamy, Edward LOOKING BACKWARDS March ; Lagierre.
TiGeorges NO MAN IS AN ISLAND March ; So-so overview of . Reviews, essays, books and the arts: the leading international weekly for literary culture.
Laissez Faire was policy that stated that the government should interfere as little as possible in the nation's economy in the s. This means that the government has little regulation in business and that businesses can operate in a purely free market. Degrowth is a rejection of the illusion of growth and a call to repoliticize the public debate colonized by the idiom of economism.
It is a project advocating the democratically-led shrinking of production and consumption with the aim of achieving social justice and ecological sustainability.