"... there are times when silence is a poem." - John Fowles, the Magus ^(;,;)^
This is one of those scholarly books that seem to end up being accidental cultural markers of time and place. I'm pretty sure Piketty wanted his book to be read/discussed/debated, and Belnap/Harvard Press certainly wanted it to be bought. But, I'm pretty sure neither the author or the publisher was expecting it to do sell like it did (whether it gets read is another matter). My guess is this book will stimulate a lot of debate about the real nature and scope of income and capital inequality AND debate about the proper roll of government in addressing these issues.
What I loved about this book was Piketty's voice. His narrative style. The fact he rejected the theoretical speculation favored by a lot of modern economists and instead went with a historical and data-centric narrative, gave this book juice. He wrote an economics book that demands to be read. I loved how he used literature (Balzac and Austen) as reference points for his thesis about the challenges with income and capital disparities between the 1% and the lower 50%. I loved his boldness. I mean really, it takes some scholarly, economic balls to name your book 'Capital'. It is like walking into a Liverpool pub with a Manchester Untied shirt on. Piketty was provocative right from the start.
Why didn't I rate this higher? I thought his proscriptive approach (Part IV) was a bit naive. I get what he is trying to do. He is setting the flag at the ideal point and letting the politics take care of itself, but his ideal isn't really even on this planet (not even on Planet France). I'm not sure the governing class in any of the major nations he dealt with will ever be ready for a large-scale capital tax, or a global system of taxing and studying incomes. There just isn't any stomach for that. Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I think we are already governed by system of economic élite domination. It is more likely that a natural disaster, world war, or years of inflation are way more likely to change the current and growing capital inequality in the US and Europe than any preventative, rational, or progressive tax on wealth.
We can barely politically stomach a slight increase to capital gains/dividend tax rates without shutting down government and calls to impeach our president. A one-time, double-digit tax on wealth just won't happen in my lifetime. When 97% of scientists warn us about global warming, but because of vested energy interests and media complicity we find half of our nation believing it is all hype as the poles melt, what hope do we have in preventing millionaires and billionaires from accumulating more wealth? Most will remain ignorant of the problem, apathetic about how that type of income disparity harms democracy, and mostly antagonistic about changing what is perceived to be a meritocracy for a redistributive tax solution. Just not going to happen. I can't see it happening in France, let alone Britain, China or the US.
But that is just me venting my frustrations. The future IS the sole property of the future. I might be wrong. For the most part the book is already doing what he wanted. He's got FT writing and challenging his data. He has Paul Krugman giving supporting data. I'm reading his book instead of a Dan Brown novel. So, my bitching aside, his book has already done 10x what it had every practical right to do. It might just end up being the next John Rawls tome, read by economists, politicians and those tired of Dan Brown novels. I sure hope so.