Knjiga “Capital in the 21st Century” Thomasa Pikettyja še kar buri duhove, vsak dan je objavljena kakšna nova refleksija. To govori o njeni aktualnosti. Večina komentarjev je bila do sedaj izjemno pozitivna, nekaj je bilo konstruktivno kritičnih komentarjev. Počasi pa so se začeli prebujati desničarji in konzervativni think-tanki, ki v Pikettyjevem predlogu po obdavčenju kapitala vidijo neposredno ideološko nevarnost.

Zanimiv je odziv britanskega The Economista, ki je sebe proglasil kot progresivni liberalni medij. Economist je Pikettyjevi knjigi namenil veliko prostora, v vsaki številki pa je objavljena analiza enega poglavja iz sicer zelo obsežne knjige (čez 600 strani). Tokrat se je Economist lotil kritike na račun Pikettyja izpod tipkovnice Cliva Crooka, urednika The Atlantic Monthly, ki je pred tem 20 let urejal Economista.

Zanimiv je žar, s katerim Economist stoji za Pikettyjem in se fokusira na neenakost kot eno izmed ključnih vprašanj dolgoročnega razvoja. Podatki nedvomno kažejo, da visoke koncentracije kapitala niso niti potreben niti zadosten pogoj za hitro rast. Nasprotno, tudi če zanemarimo vidik humanosti, je problem visoke koncentracije kapitala najmanj v ustvarjanju potencialnih socialnih tenzij in politične nestabilnosti, ki nato povratno negativno vplivata na gospodarsko rast. Celotno 19. stoletje do začetka Velike gospodarske depresije leta 1929 sta odličen dokaz za slednje.

Why do we care about inequality? We care about it because we are human, and we can’t help but be concerned about matters of fairness, however much economists might wish that were not the case. But what Mr Crook seems not to understand is that we also care about it because we care about living standards. Mr Piketty’s book does an able job showing that high levels and concentrations of capital have not been a necessary or sufficient condition for rapid growth in the past, though they have often sowed the seeds for political backlash that is detrimental to long-run growth. His argument is that the living standards of many people around the rich world are now unnecessarily low, because of the nonchalance with which elites have approached distributional issues over the past generation, and that continued heedlessness of this sort will ultimately undermine the growth-boosting institutions of capitalism. His argument is that economic growth that concentrates benefits on a small group of people will probably not be tolerated as fair, even if living standards among the masses are not completely stagnant.

It is an argument that is powerful and well-supported by the data—and extremely relevant today, whether or not one thinks inequality qualifies as the defining issue of the era. That, it seems to me, is why the book has been received as it has.

Vir: The Economist