[graevy]

"More precisely, I will come to the following conclusion. Whenever the rate of return on capital is significantly and durably higher than the growth rate of the economy, it is all but inevitable that inheritance (of fortunes accumulated in the past) predominates over saving (wealth accumulated in the present). In strict logic, it could be otherwise, but the forces pushing in this direction are extremely powerful. The inequality r > g in one sense implies that the past tends to devour the future: wealth originating in the past automatically grows more rapidly, even without labor, than wealth stemming from work, which can be saved. Almost inevitably, this tends to give lasting, disproportionate importance to inequalities created in the past, and therefore to inheritance." (20.3)

"The inequality r > g implies that wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly than output and wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. Once constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future." (27.6)

- Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st Century

[notacoward]

This gets at where I disagree with Varoufakis (and Zuboff). The rent-seeking dystopia we have is not something "beyond" capitalism, unless one conflates capitalism with free markets - which is and always has been a mistake. The distinguishing feature of capitalism is in the name: a disproportionate favor given to capital. This is especially evident in tax laws, but also IP law, labor law, etc. As Piketty points out, this inevitably leads to pervasive rent-seeking. That's not a "beyond"; it's the (mostly) stable end state once such a system is put in place. It's actually injurious to free markets, and nobody should hate it more than those seeking to enter a market with a genuinely innovative idea. Unfortunately, there are more people seeking to be favored servants than independent people.

[jauntywundrkind]

Technology has alas eroded property rights. We no longer own our vehicles, our cars, our tvs: anything with a computer now has an elaborate contract outlining whatever rights the seller seems to grant us, which can be changed at any time.

Anti-circumvention law applied massive legal weight to this, preventing the world from delving in & understanding the various devices around us. Which is now often defined by millions of lines of code, compiled down to devices, anyhow.

Whether the seller is free to create arbitrary restrictions & constraints on usage during sale, or whether the buyer is free to use purchases as they may is a huge tension here.

And there have been so few corrective actions or regulations to tilt things back in people's favor. GDPR a small collection of rights to data, but does nothing to help enlighten us as to the machines & their functioning. This all feels so infernal, trapped by law which doesn't let us look, trapped by machines where the mechanism inside is often inaccessible & invisible.

[eatonphil]

This is a great book. I have Capital and Ideology on my nightstand too but I'm building up the fortitude to power through it.

[wenebego]

I just started reading it last night, really enjoying it

[thriftwy]

Realistically, any small amount of wealth that is available to a citizen will not grow significantly relative to any other comparable amount, since there is no room for it to grow. So don't worry about this devouring business.

But other than that, accumulated wealth and inheritance is going to play much bigger role than it was last century, which historically was a fluke.

Better save some money so you can get your children a place to live of their own.