Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century"
Summary of content:
Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" examines economic inequality throughout history and up to today. Piketty uses extensive historical data to analyze wealth distribution and income inequality, focusing on how capital and labor income have developed over time.
- Main thesis: Piketty argues that the world is moving towards a form of "patrimonial capitalism", where inherited wealth plays an increasingly important role. He shows that the return on capital (r) tends to exceed the economic growth rate (g), leading to increasing inequality. This formula, r > g, is central to his analysis and implies that capital owners accumulate wealth faster than the economy grows, exacerbating income inequality.
- Historical context: Piketty traces the development of capital and income distribution from the 1700th century until today. He notes that the industrial revolution and subsequent economic growth led to a reduction in inequality for a period. However, this trend has reversed since the 1980s, with increasing inequality as a result.
- The role of capital: Piketty points out that the share of capital in national income has increased, while the share of labor income has decreased. This means that capital owners get a larger share of the pie, while wage earners get a smaller share.
- Suggestions for measures: To counter this trend, Piketty proposes a global progressive wealth tax, which would help redistribute wealth and reduce inequality. He also believes that a progressive income tax with high tax rates for the wealthiest would be effective, although he acknowledges that such measures may be politically difficult to implement.
- Future challenges: Piketty warns that without action to correct these trends, we can expect a world of low economic growth and extreme inequality, where a few owners of capital dominate the economy.
Thomas Piketty's "Capital and Ideology"
Summary of content:
In "Capital and Ideology" Piketty continues his exploration of inequality, but with a broader focus on the ideological systems that have justified and maintained inequality throughout history. He argues that inequality is not just an economic necessity but a result of political choices and ideological constructs.
- Main thesis: Piketty argues that inequality is a political construct and that society's justification of different forms of inequality has changed over time. He examines how different ideological systems, from feudal societies to today's meritocratic societies, have motivated the distribution of wealth and power.
- Historical Analysis: The book provides a comprehensive historical analysis of various social systems and their distribution of economic resources. Piketty shows how societies have moved through different stages of inequality and the ideologies that have justified these stages, from slave societies to colonialism and today's capitalist system.
- Suggestions for measures: Piketty proposes a series of policy measures to create a more equal society, including progressive taxes on wealth and income, as well as investment in education and social programs. He argues that a more equal distribution of resources would lead to a fairer and more stable society.
- The role of democracy: Piketty emphasizes the importance of democracy in creating fair economic systems. He believes that political power should be spread more evenly and that citizens' influence over economic policy should be increased to counteract the concentration of wealth and power.
- Criticism of meritocracy: The book criticizes the meritocratic ideology that dominates many modern societies, where individuals are rewarded based on their perceived talents and efforts. Piketty argues that this view ignores the structural factors that influence economic success and justify inequality.

I would also like to give Per Molander's little book The Anatomy of Inequality, which seems to have roughly the same content as Piketty's other book. Molander also points to how different ideologues do not want to tackle the issue with forceps, despite the fact that 80% of inequality consists of chance and despite inequality's destructive effects. More on https://gemensam.wordpress.com/2019/10/02/om-ojamlikheten-okar-beror-det-bara-pa-minskat-politiskt-tryck-nerifran/.
In any case, even Molander seems to have a little difficulty in proposing measures, even though he is very clear that the temporarily reduced inequality around 1900-1980 was due to trade union struggles.
I liked Molander's book. Financially speaking, the solution is the reintroduction of Keynesianism, Bretton Woods, preferably a fictitious currency for world trade, more national self-sufficiency aided by international solidarity, only global trade unless otherwise possible for a certain product/service, more progressive tax, market regulations, many nationalizations, government subsidized cutting edge research etc etc. The big thing is to explain that welfare and government deficits pay off. They pay off but there are so many lies to the contrary. https://www.oskarbrandt.com/2024/05/10/vi-reade-ut-vart-land-i-onodan/
However, a new economy should be more green and circular https://www.oskarbrandt.com/2023/03/16/degrowth-capitalism-the-importance-of-a-radically-potent-but-comfortable-climate-strategy/
And, not to forget, based on strong unions and other organizations that are not controlled by the government.
I think it was this that broke the Swedish system. In any case, that is what Kjell Östberg suggests in his book The rise and fall of the Swedish social democrats. Social democratic party leaders did everything to demobilize the force that had brought them to government. Both with unfair methods like blacklisting and with less unfair ones like telling people to sit still in the boat, they would definitely fix it. They should have understood that this would not work in a society where capitalists were still completely free to organize as they pleased.
Roosevelt was smarter. He used to tell courting movements that "I agree with you, but keep the pressure up or I can't do anything." The only Social Democrat I've heard say that was John-Olle Persson who came to us in Alternativ Stad shortly before his death and asked us to continue the opposition to motorways so it would be easier for him to push the issue within the apparatus. But, as I said, he died unfortunately.
Although now some have woken up (although it is probably too late for them), see https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/a/yE1X22/eric-rosen-om-ingvar-carlsson-hopp-vrede-och-aktivism!
Late shall the sinner awake.