Tuesday , November 21 2017
Home / Brad Delong, Berkeley / Should-Read: Diane Coyle: Inequality, revisited>

Should-Read: Diane Coyle: Inequality, revisited>

Summary:
Should-Read: Piketty’s elasticity of substitution between capital and labor is, in his model, produced by the constancy of the rate of profit near 5%/year in spite of wide swings in the capital-output ratio. You can’t say that substitution parameter is wrong without providing an alternative explanation for the constancy of the rate of profit. Yet very few of Piketty’s critics even attempt that: Diane Coyle: Inequality, revisited: “Recently I’ve been dipping into The Contradictions of Capital in the 21st Century: The Piketty Opportunity, edited by Pat Hudson and Keith Tribe… http://www.enlightenmenteconomics.com/blog/index.php/2017/09/inequality-revisited/ …There is a reasonable consensus among the contributors to these various collections that Piketty’s theorising is flawed (in

Topics:
Bradford DeLong considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Bradford DeLong writes You Just Cannot Be an Honest Neoclassical Economist and Make the Trumpublican Tax “Reform” a Winner for U.S. National Income Growth…

Bradford DeLong writes Republican Politicians, Non-Technocrats, and Technocrats on Tax “Reform” Edition…

Bradford DeLong writes Must-Read: Martin Sandbu: Who should govern the euro?

Bradford DeLong writes Should-Read: Peter Lindert: The rise and future of progressive redistribution

Should-Read: Piketty’s elasticity of substitution between capital and labor is, in his model, produced by the constancy of the rate of profit near 5%/year in spite of wide swings in the capital-output ratio. You can’t say that substitution parameter is wrong without providing an alternative explanation for the constancy of the rate of profit. Yet very few of Piketty’s critics even attempt that:

Diane Coyle: Inequality, revisited: “Recently I’ve been dipping into The Contradictions of Capital in the 21st Century: The Piketty Opportunity, edited by Pat Hudson and Keith Tribe… http://www.enlightenmenteconomics.com/blog/index.php/2017/09/inequality-revisited/

…There is a reasonable consensus among the contributors to these various collections that Piketty’s theorising is flawed (in particular depending on an empirically invalid assumption about the substitution between capital and labour), that his application of a theory about productive capital to the data including housing wealth and financial capital is troubling, and that his call for a global wealth tax is (as Avner Offer puts it in his essay in this book) ‘utopian’. Equally, pretty much all would agree that Piketty, with co-authors, has done a terrific service in putting together the database, and in getting inequality on the agenda of both economists and policymakers.

Pat Hudson[‘s]… challenge to Capital in the 21st Century is its omission of globalisation and technology as drivers of inequality–if one is thinking about policies to mitigate inequality, r>g isn’t much help. She pinpoints financial markets, and regulatory and political beliefs, as key points of intervention–in other words, the specifics Piketty ignores in his generalisations. Avner Offer focuses on housing, and limiting its tendency to make wealth more unequal through credit controls. The main sections of the book aim to particularise the analysis of inequality by looking at the trends, institutions and politics of different countries – one section on western economies, one on major economies elsewhere. As Luis Bértola points out here, Piketty is very Eurocentric. Having these different national perspectives is a useful contribution…

Bradford DeLong
J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing the bailout of Mexico during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies, and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic-policy debates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *