Jump to content

Talk:Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Superzoulou (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 11 July 2014 (→Reception vs. Critiques: ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEconomics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBooks C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

List of book reviews

Book reviews may help Wikipedians expand this article. I propose we compile a list. Here's a start:

These reviews are behind paywalls:

--JHP (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post has compiled a list of reviews in a sarcastic article titled "How to write a Thomas Piketty think piece, in 10 easy steps." --JHP (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an NPR radio interview with Thomas Piketty and Harvard economics department chair Greg Mankiw: Ashbrook, Tom (April 29, 2014). "Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality". On Point. 90.9 WBUR. --JHP (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more thoughts on Piketty's work by several top economists:

--JHP (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception vs. Critiques

I have added a "Critiques" section to the article. There was already a "Reception" section. The "Reception" section seemed to be entirely about the overall importance of the work as a whole and was overwhelmingly positive, sort of like the blurbs on book jackets. I didn't want to spoil this, so I created the separate "Critiques" section as a place to address specific elements of the book more in-depth. I envision the "Critiques" section to be sort of like the "Criticism" section of many Wikipedia articles, but criticism sections are generally overwhelmingly negative. I'm hoping that "critiques" is a more balanced word than "criticism" and will encourage more balanced content. --JHP (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this didn't last. Nevermind. --JHP (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section seems to be somewhat haphazard. I would suggest that we try to put some structure into it. Perhaps:

  1. overall impact (sales figures, number of criticms, people who say it is is a major book)
  2. reception of the book's data (that seem to be mostly positive). We should probably cite Chris Giles' piece, but as it seems to have been entirely, I do not think we should put much emphasis on it at the moment.
  3. reception of the book's economic theory (some people say there is good theory, some people says it's good, because there are many negative reviews that could be cited here.
  4. reception of the book's forecast (many people seem to give credence to Piketty's forecast, but those I have found who have discussed them at more length disagree with them.
  5. policy recommendations, which are what much of the book's conclusion is about. They have drawn a lot of criticisms. --Superzoulou (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that following this proposal would improve readability. In the end, the distinctions you propose are not as clear-cut as it may seem.--Herbert81 (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not clear cut ? Many critics even make those distinctions explicitly. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marx in the lede

The sentence: The book has been compared to Marx's Das Kapital, improving his analysis by using modern economic data

The first part I think is fine, as this comparison has indeed been made frequently. I do not think however the second part belongs in the lede. It's just the opinion of one reviewer that this Capital "improved" the analysis of the other Capital "using modern economic data". I sort of doubt it's true also, but nm. If there were several reviews out there that made this claim - which is stronger than just comparing the book to Marx - then I'd be fine with it. But it's just one, AFAICT. Remove? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original source doesn't say "improved". It says "updated". The change in wording was probably a good faith attempt to avoid plagiarism. The problem that arises is that "improved" is opinion, while "updated" is fact. There is a second source that backs up the Washington Post's claim. That source is The Economist (already cited elsewhere in the article). It writes "[Piketty's] title is an allusion to Marx’s magnum opus. But he possesses an advantage they lacked: two centuries’ worth of hard data."[1] Given the fact that two sources say essentially the same thing—that Piketty is using historical data unavailable to Marx—I suggest the sentence be fixed, rather than removed. --JHP (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the said sentence in accordance with the sources and the discussion here. But I am now looking at James K. Galbraith's review, which opens with a discussion of how Piketty has a rather simple, if not confused, understanding of capital that is less Marx and more neoclassical. Furthermore, people like Galbraith and Roberto Unger have faulted him for lacking a theory of economic growth, which is really at the center of Marx's Das Kapital. I thus suggest we revise or qualify this sentence somehow. Archivingcontext (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piketty's Formula

I believe the article should mention Piketty's formula for the accumulation of wealth. Piketty says that wealth will accumulate if the rate of return on capital is greater than the economic growth rate. This seems to be a central part of his thesis, and it should be in the article. It's also reasonably simple. –MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slight, but important, correction. He says that wealth will concentrate if r>g. Wealth can accumulate without any change in inequality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VM is correct. I think it is worth adding. If we do, I'd like a little thought about the term, as the word "concentrate" is correct, but might be misunderstood. Might be worth checking to see what Piketty said (assuming some RS reports it).--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a translation, there might be variance, but "concentration" seems more accurate in this context than "accumulation". The "centralization of capital" is frequently addressed in conjunction with the "concentration of wealth" in this regard as well. Wikipedia has an article Capital_accumulation with a section Capital_accumulation#Concentration_and_centralization.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong claims require solid support

The second sentence of the Contents section reads:

The book thus argues that unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened.

I read the source: [1]

Rather than simply revert and discuss, I thought I might be missing something, so I'm asking if someone else can see how the very strong claim the very democratic order will be threatened is supported by the source. I'll also suggest, that such a strong claim, unless supplemented by links to the original book, requires additional sourcing. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ryan Cooper (March 25, 2014). "Why everyone is talking about Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century". The Week.
Nevermind, I see the support.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to expand on that. I read the support in the book itself, but I do not see it in that particular reference. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by former Bank of England governor

Here's a review by Mervyn King (economist) who served as Governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2013 [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdhgfgfh (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century&oldid=616531832"