1
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:07,760
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stephanomics, the podcast that usually brings the global

2
00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:16,200
Speaker 1: economy to you. We are technically on a break. The

3
00:00:16,239 --> 00:00:19,640
Speaker 1: next season of Stephanomics starts in April. But I got

4
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:21,800
Speaker 1: a chance to sit down with the rock style French

5
00:00:21,840 --> 00:00:25,840
Speaker 1: economist Thomas Picketty to talk about his new book, Capital

6
00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:28,880
Speaker 1: and Ideology, to just come out in English. I thought

7
00:00:28,920 --> 00:00:31,760
Speaker 1: you might want to listen in. You'll remember the fuss

8
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:34,720
Speaker 1: about his first book, Capital in the twenty first Century,

9
00:00:34,960 --> 00:00:38,120
Speaker 1: with its sweeping analysis of the rise and fall and

10
00:00:38,400 --> 00:00:43,080
Speaker 1: rise again of global inequality. That best selling book was

11
00:00:43,120 --> 00:00:46,360
Speaker 1: over seven hundred pages long. A lot of people only

12
00:00:46,400 --> 00:00:48,800
Speaker 1: pretended to have read it, but it did inspire an

13
00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:52,239
Speaker 1: enormous amount of debate about wealth and inequality and the

14
00:00:52,280 --> 00:00:56,320
Speaker 1: causes of our economic discontent. And that was six years ago,

15
00:00:56,840 --> 00:01:01,160
Speaker 1: before Brexit, before the election of Donald Trump. Now this

16
00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:05,640
Speaker 1: new book from Pecketty is even longer, nearly eleven d pages.

17
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,200
Speaker 1: I started by asking him what else was different about it?

18
00:01:17,319 --> 00:01:19,600
Speaker 1: First of all, thanks for your invitation. I have learned

19
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:23,120
Speaker 1: a lot from all the discussion after the publication of

20
00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:25,440
Speaker 1: Capital in the twenty first Century, and I have come

21
00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:28,840
Speaker 1: to realize, you know, some of the many limitations that

22
00:01:28,840 --> 00:01:31,400
Speaker 1: that that that this previous book of mine had, and

23
00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:35,200
Speaker 1: probably the mental limitation was that my previous book was

24
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:40,640
Speaker 1: too much centered on western countries, Western Europe, North America,

25
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:44,920
Speaker 1: a little bit in Japan. But this new book has

26
00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:49,680
Speaker 1: take so much broader global view and inequality regime. I

27
00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:53,040
Speaker 1: I talked about India, I talk about Brazil, I talk

28
00:01:53,080 --> 00:01:58,640
Speaker 1: about China, and I put the entire history of inequality

29
00:01:58,680 --> 00:02:04,280
Speaker 1: regime into a much broader historical comparative perspective, the impact

30
00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:08,400
Speaker 1: of of colonialism, and I this is something that was

31
00:02:08,400 --> 00:02:11,560
Speaker 1: really missing from my previous book. And in relation to this,

32
00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:17,880
Speaker 1: I put much more on phases to ideology, political discourse,

33
00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:23,360
Speaker 1: and systems of justification of different level of inequality and equality,

34
00:02:23,639 --> 00:02:26,280
Speaker 1: because I think in the end this is really the

35
00:02:27,240 --> 00:02:32,640
Speaker 1: key driving force behind changes in inequality region, which is

36
00:02:32,680 --> 00:02:37,040
Speaker 1: something I did not perceive as clearly at the time

37
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:40,400
Speaker 1: I wrote The Capital in the twenty first century. And

38
00:02:40,960 --> 00:02:45,160
Speaker 1: I think this is what makes this book more interesting, better,

39
00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:48,079
Speaker 1: I think, more enjoyable to read. And so if you

40
00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:52,799
Speaker 1: read any one, please reads the first. Get well, and

41
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:56,120
Speaker 1: everybody read the first. But for those who you know

42
00:02:56,200 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 1: did not read the first, I think you know please

43
00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:00,840
Speaker 1: pick this one. And what is interesting, I think there

44
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:02,920
Speaker 1: was a lot some of the criticism of the of

45
00:03:02,960 --> 00:03:06,040
Speaker 1: the other book was that you had you focused on

46
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:11,040
Speaker 1: the mechanics of inequality and then you also looked at

47
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:12,960
Speaker 1: a lot of history. But maybe there was that some

48
00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:16,119
Speaker 1: of the politics was was missing. And I guess what's

49
00:03:16,160 --> 00:03:18,920
Speaker 1: most striking about this is that you are making an

50
00:03:18,960 --> 00:03:21,720
Speaker 1: argument that it's not just say, World War One and

51
00:03:21,760 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 1: World War Two that gave us that moment of where

52
00:03:25,600 --> 00:03:28,799
Speaker 1: society has became more equal after many, many years of

53
00:03:29,800 --> 00:03:32,480
Speaker 1: becoming less equal. That there were other things going on.

54
00:03:32,520 --> 00:03:34,360
Speaker 1: So I guess that's interesting. We were just talking earlier

55
00:03:34,360 --> 00:03:37,680
Speaker 1: about the Sweden example. I think the idea that um

56
00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:42,760
Speaker 1: that ideology has helped change countries make them more egalitarian,

57
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:45,480
Speaker 1: and it's not just that Sweden is in itself a

58
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:50,280
Speaker 1: very egalitarian sort of kind of country. Yes, exactly. So

59
00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:53,240
Speaker 1: if you take the example of Sweden, actually the example

60
00:03:53,280 --> 00:03:56,120
Speaker 1: of the United States, you know, world War One was

61
00:03:56,200 --> 00:04:00,240
Speaker 1: not so important in delivering changes, and what was most

62
00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:05,920
Speaker 1: important was more the political mobilization in the case of Sweden,

63
00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:08,800
Speaker 1: and how those you know, the social democrats, managed to

64
00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:15,400
Speaker 1: completely change the very ideological and institutional structure of Swedish society,

65
00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:19,760
Speaker 1: which until nineteen eleven was was based on a very

66
00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:24,200
Speaker 1: extreme form of sacralization of property rights with voting rights.

67
00:04:24,279 --> 00:04:28,320
Speaker 1: At the time we're rising very strongly with the size

68
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:31,159
Speaker 1: of your property. You could have up to one hundred

69
00:04:31,279 --> 00:04:34,200
Speaker 1: votes for very rich people. And and in several dozen

70
00:04:35,240 --> 00:04:39,440
Speaker 1: Swedish municipalities you even had this situation where one individual

71
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:41,479
Speaker 1: at more than half of the vote and so was

72
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:46,280
Speaker 1: perfectly legal dictator. And and so this is an example

73
00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:52,960
Speaker 1: illustrating both that the ideology of property and its constitutionalization

74
00:04:53,080 --> 00:04:56,159
Speaker 1: can go very far in history and also that these

75
00:04:56,200 --> 00:04:59,720
Speaker 1: things can change through peaceful means. And in the case

76
00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:03,680
Speaker 1: of reader and it was mostly a political mobilization and

77
00:05:03,880 --> 00:05:07,119
Speaker 1: and the you know, social democrats winning power in nineteen

78
00:05:07,240 --> 00:05:10,839
Speaker 1: thirty two and putting the state capacity of the country

79
00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:13,839
Speaker 1: to the service of a completely different political project. In

80
00:05:13,880 --> 00:05:16,320
Speaker 1: the case of the US, the Great Depression played a

81
00:05:16,360 --> 00:05:20,120
Speaker 1: major role in inbertingment. It's more than that. It's it's well,

82
00:05:20,200 --> 00:05:23,479
Speaker 1: first financial crisis will happen again. So it's not World

83
00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:25,200
Speaker 1: War world and World War two. It's you know, the

84
00:05:25,279 --> 00:05:28,400
Speaker 1: Great Depression played a bigger role, I think to transform

85
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:33,440
Speaker 1: the perception into Westerns than than the world of of

86
00:05:33,720 --> 00:05:36,040
Speaker 1: World War One, which was mostly of European world, and

87
00:05:36,120 --> 00:05:38,680
Speaker 1: I did not have so much impact on and he

88
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:44,200
Speaker 1: was much lesser in Europe. There was a gradual intellectual

89
00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:47,279
Speaker 1: and political process which already before World War One led

90
00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:50,200
Speaker 1: the US to create a federal in contax and a

91
00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:52,960
Speaker 1: federal state tax and the view that you need to

92
00:05:53,520 --> 00:05:57,880
Speaker 1: control the level of concentration of power, which and you

93
00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:00,560
Speaker 1: see a similar kind of movement today in the US

94
00:06:00,680 --> 00:06:03,120
Speaker 1: with a bigger fraction and parts of the young generation

95
00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:07,760
Speaker 1: who are talking about socialism or want to hear about

96
00:06:07,920 --> 00:06:11,880
Speaker 1: how your book limits to the power of billionaires and

97
00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:14,320
Speaker 1: the concentration of wealth. And I think in order to

98
00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:17,599
Speaker 1: understand this kind of historical episode that we see today

99
00:06:18,080 --> 00:06:20,720
Speaker 1: in the US, which sometimes people have a surprised to

100
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:23,040
Speaker 1: hear that, but if you put it in this broader

101
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:29,040
Speaker 1: historical and ideological perspective, you realize that you know, you

102
00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:32,280
Speaker 1: have this ideological cycle. There is also a process of

103
00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:36,479
Speaker 1: overall learning in history about justice, so that this book,

104
00:06:36,520 --> 00:06:38,480
Speaker 1: you know, I'm trying. Maybe I'm a bit naive, but

105
00:06:38,640 --> 00:06:42,120
Speaker 1: I think, you know, I think today's societies are even

106
00:06:42,200 --> 00:06:45,040
Speaker 1: those has been rising in equality in recent decades are

107
00:06:45,279 --> 00:06:48,920
Speaker 1: much more equal than what they were century ago, and

108
00:06:49,040 --> 00:06:51,520
Speaker 1: themselves were more lical to some expense than one or

109
00:06:51,560 --> 00:06:53,560
Speaker 1: two cent tries before. So there is a long term

110
00:06:54,120 --> 00:06:58,320
Speaker 1: process of going towards equality, towards the form of learning

111
00:06:58,360 --> 00:07:02,160
Speaker 1: ad justice, and and this has been tremendously successful in

112
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:05,120
Speaker 1: your twentieth centuries. A reduction of equality in the long

113
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:08,440
Speaker 1: run not only is a reality, but is we allowed

114
00:07:08,560 --> 00:07:14,040
Speaker 1: for increased social mobility, increased economic prosperity, access to education

115
00:07:14,040 --> 00:07:16,760
Speaker 1: and culture. And you know, I think this process in

116
00:07:16,880 --> 00:07:20,960
Speaker 1: the longer run can continue if we draw as the

117
00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:23,920
Speaker 1: right lessons from his story. And it's interesting when you

118
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:26,760
Speaker 1: look at the U S election. I mean, because if

119
00:07:26,840 --> 00:07:29,920
Speaker 1: people think that everything is going seriously wrong, and there's

120
00:07:29,920 --> 00:07:31,560
Speaker 1: people on the right and the left who think, I

121
00:07:31,600 --> 00:07:34,160
Speaker 1: think the world has gone to hell, then you have

122
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:36,400
Speaker 1: to have as a politician, you have to have answers

123
00:07:36,440 --> 00:07:39,320
Speaker 1: that seem radical enough to respond to that. So potentially

124
00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:43,960
Speaker 1: you've had Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders actually have quite

125
00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:48,080
Speaker 1: a radical platform. Um. But that very radicalism then means

126
00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:50,160
Speaker 1: maybe that people step back from it in the polls

127
00:07:50,200 --> 00:07:52,280
Speaker 1: and say, well, I'm a bit frightened of this because

128
00:07:52,320 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 1: it's so different. So I'm just interested. Do you think

129
00:07:54,800 --> 00:07:58,280
Speaker 1: the path, the best path, is going to be through

130
00:07:58,320 --> 00:08:01,840
Speaker 1: sort of gradual change, you know, slightly more progressive taxes,

131
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:04,680
Speaker 1: a few more wealth taxes, or do you think it

132
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:08,080
Speaker 1: will take a more fundamental questioning, at least in one

133
00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:13,600
Speaker 1: country or another. I think first that Wherever and Sanders

134
00:08:13,720 --> 00:08:16,640
Speaker 1: are not radical, they are moderate social democrats, you know,

135
00:08:16,760 --> 00:08:19,680
Speaker 1: by European stands in their own within the ideology of

136
00:08:19,720 --> 00:08:24,000
Speaker 1: the US. But the ideology of the US is itself changing,

137
00:08:24,200 --> 00:08:26,400
Speaker 1: and you know, has been different in the in the past.

138
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:28,920
Speaker 1: You know, remember that the US is actually the country

139
00:08:29,040 --> 00:08:34,120
Speaker 1: which invented very sickly progressive taxation of income and inherited

140
00:08:34,200 --> 00:08:37,079
Speaker 1: wells in the twentieth century. So it's not there's no

141
00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:41,160
Speaker 1: national determinism which makes the country you know, in love

142
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:45,040
Speaker 1: with inequality and love with equalities. These things can change

143
00:08:45,800 --> 00:08:49,120
Speaker 1: very quickly in the case of the US. You Know,

144
00:08:49,240 --> 00:08:52,640
Speaker 1: what I find very striking is a very low electoral

145
00:08:53,160 --> 00:08:58,680
Speaker 1: participation of the lower and lower middle social economic group.

146
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:02,640
Speaker 1: You know, we just don't participate in elections. And this

147
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:07,599
Speaker 1: is true for the irrespective of race or color. You know,

148
00:09:07,679 --> 00:09:11,880
Speaker 1: the white public political don't just don't vote so wise

149
00:09:12,040 --> 00:09:14,800
Speaker 1: that they don't vote well, maybe partly because they feel

150
00:09:14,880 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 1: that what is being proposed and what has been proposed

151
00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:21,679
Speaker 1: in recent decades, both by the Republican and the Democrat,

152
00:09:21,880 --> 00:09:24,959
Speaker 1: is not really changing anything for them. And I think

153
00:09:25,080 --> 00:09:31,000
Speaker 1: that having policies on the minimum wage, on public universities,

154
00:09:31,120 --> 00:09:36,599
Speaker 1: and the funding of education reducing inequality that are you know,

155
00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:41,360
Speaker 1: a bit clearer than the policy advocated by by Clinton

156
00:09:41,640 --> 00:09:43,880
Speaker 1: or Biden or you know, can be a way to

157
00:09:44,280 --> 00:09:47,800
Speaker 1: get people to to vote. And you know, when you

158
00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:50,840
Speaker 1: have such a law participation by the by the lower

159
00:09:50,960 --> 00:09:54,600
Speaker 1: aconemy groups, you know, pretending that we should just stay

160
00:09:54,679 --> 00:09:57,559
Speaker 1: in you know, keep business as usual and keep proposing

161
00:09:57,640 --> 00:10:00,360
Speaker 1: what we've been proposing in recent decades. As the nebus,

162
00:10:00,400 --> 00:10:04,840
Speaker 1: your political strategy does not strike me as a as

163
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:08,280
Speaker 1: as very very community. You have a lot of criticism

164
00:10:09,200 --> 00:10:14,520
Speaker 1: of the social democratic parties for UM, I guess for

165
00:10:14,600 --> 00:10:17,800
Speaker 1: many things, but I think particularly for coming up not

166
00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:22,120
Speaker 1: being inventive enough in sort of thinking of alternatives to

167
00:10:22,400 --> 00:10:26,280
Speaker 1: the free market ideology and the emphasis on property that

168
00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:30,319
Speaker 1: came through in the eighties. UM. And you also you

169
00:10:30,400 --> 00:10:32,760
Speaker 1: sort of say that they became more elitist, they had

170
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:35,760
Speaker 1: less and less support from the working class. They abandoned

171
00:10:35,800 --> 00:10:39,360
Speaker 1: the working class. Some would say they abandoned it because

172
00:10:39,400 --> 00:10:43,079
Speaker 1: they also abandoned sort of national identity in favor of

173
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,360
Speaker 1: a sort of multiculturalism and as sort of a more

174
00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:51,120
Speaker 1: internationalist politics. Is that a risk in some of the

175
00:10:51,200 --> 00:10:53,600
Speaker 1: things that you're talking about that you're you're just you're

176
00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:57,439
Speaker 1: allowing the whole concept of nationalism to be taken by

177
00:10:57,760 --> 00:11:00,280
Speaker 1: the other side, and you're still talking about being more

178
00:11:00,360 --> 00:11:05,000
Speaker 1: internationalists and putting having a more ploybal album. Well, I'm

179
00:11:05,040 --> 00:11:08,480
Speaker 1: talking about the different kind of internationalism that what we've

180
00:11:08,520 --> 00:11:10,480
Speaker 1: had so far. You know, I think the nation state

181
00:11:10,679 --> 00:11:13,520
Speaker 1: has of course been a very powerful force, you know,

182
00:11:13,640 --> 00:11:19,479
Speaker 1: to build national solidarity, to build a system of social insurance,

183
00:11:19,559 --> 00:11:22,480
Speaker 1: to build system of progressive taxation, and you know, this

184
00:11:22,679 --> 00:11:26,360
Speaker 1: is where this is a political arena in which we've

185
00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:30,040
Speaker 1: built more equality in the twentieth century and we've also

186
00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:34,439
Speaker 1: built through more equality, more prosperity or mobility. So this,

187
00:11:34,760 --> 00:11:37,599
Speaker 1: you know, this construction have been very very successful, in

188
00:11:37,679 --> 00:11:42,120
Speaker 1: particular with the rise of the social state social national

189
00:11:42,200 --> 00:11:46,360
Speaker 1: state in in in Europe, in Germany, in return, France,

190
00:11:46,400 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 1: and in particular. So what I'm saying to the social

191
00:11:50,080 --> 00:11:52,959
Speaker 1: democrats is okay, if you want to go beyond that.

192
00:11:53,760 --> 00:11:58,120
Speaker 1: In particular, if you think we need international economic relation,

193
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:00,720
Speaker 1: which I think we need because we also can benefit

194
00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:02,920
Speaker 1: from trading with each other and not living in a

195
00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:06,480
Speaker 1: tarchy within this nation state, then that's fine, of course,

196
00:12:06,559 --> 00:12:09,360
Speaker 1: But then you need to think hard about how you

197
00:12:09,520 --> 00:12:13,839
Speaker 1: organize this economic relation, and you cannot just organize them

198
00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:19,119
Speaker 1: through free trade, free capital flows without any common regulation,

199
00:12:19,240 --> 00:12:21,800
Speaker 1: which is what has been done. And so that's why

200
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:26,240
Speaker 1: I propose a different form of international organization in the

201
00:12:26,440 --> 00:12:29,439
Speaker 1: in the group, which I could social federalism, in the

202
00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:32,439
Speaker 1: sense that I see any group of countries, you know,

203
00:12:32,520 --> 00:12:34,959
Speaker 1: even two countries, or you know, France and Belgium, or

204
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:38,880
Speaker 1: France and Britain signing a treaty to organize a trade

205
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:42,839
Speaker 1: relation between them. Uh, you know, this trade relation and

206
00:12:43,000 --> 00:12:47,920
Speaker 1: the flow of capital or investment should come after some

207
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:51,360
Speaker 1: common objectives have been set in terms of social goals

208
00:12:51,440 --> 00:12:55,640
Speaker 1: and reduction of inequality and common taxation if needed, a

209
00:12:56,200 --> 00:13:01,479
Speaker 1: common uh you know, labor or common on fila mental goals. Otherwise,

210
00:13:02,440 --> 00:13:05,960
Speaker 1: but the European Union, well not naurally, you know, there's

211
00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:09,320
Speaker 1: never been any common taxation founder in the European Union.

212
00:13:09,400 --> 00:13:12,679
Speaker 1: So in effect, the big winners of the of the

213
00:13:12,760 --> 00:13:17,680
Speaker 1: European Union have been, you know, the most mobile economic groups,

214
00:13:17,720 --> 00:13:23,760
Speaker 1: you know, a large corporation, uh, individuals with with high

215
00:13:24,080 --> 00:13:28,440
Speaker 1: human capital or high financial capital who can easily benefit

216
00:13:28,559 --> 00:13:34,200
Speaker 1: from a mobility and by putting the different governments in competition.

217
00:13:34,280 --> 00:13:35,959
Speaker 1: So I think this has been a wrong model, so

218
00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:42,200
Speaker 1: so that there's a need for complete resinking of this. Otherwise,

219
00:13:42,480 --> 00:13:44,400
Speaker 1: you know, I think that what I describe as the

220
00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:49,640
Speaker 1: nationalist discourse, which is more the nativist discourse in in

221
00:13:50,280 --> 00:13:54,679
Speaker 1: this case, will propose something else, which is basically, okay,

222
00:13:54,760 --> 00:13:59,640
Speaker 1: we we we're gonna be very tough on migrants. I

223
00:13:59,720 --> 00:14:04,640
Speaker 1: don't city, we don't need to have any restributions through

224
00:14:04,720 --> 00:14:08,120
Speaker 1: a progressive taxation between you know, the reach and the

225
00:14:08,280 --> 00:14:13,120
Speaker 1: poor and just a sort of gardening. The pure cultural

226
00:14:13,280 --> 00:14:17,760
Speaker 1: conflict and identity conflict is going to be our answer.

227
00:14:17,880 --> 00:14:20,320
Speaker 1: And if there is no you know other, you know

228
00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:22,760
Speaker 1: other answer on the table, you know, I'm afraid this

229
00:14:22,880 --> 00:14:26,600
Speaker 1: is indeed, you can win the day. It can win

230
00:14:26,680 --> 00:14:28,720
Speaker 1: the day for a short while because in the end,

231
00:14:28,800 --> 00:14:30,320
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't think it will solve the

232
00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:32,120
Speaker 1: prime in the long run, you know, the problem we

233
00:14:32,200 --> 00:14:36,680
Speaker 1: have to solve. Global warming, rising inequality are not problems

234
00:14:36,720 --> 00:14:42,320
Speaker 1: you're going to solve with pure nationalism, retreat and more

235
00:14:42,440 --> 00:14:47,160
Speaker 1: and more competition between countries and no intentional correnation that

236
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:51,000
Speaker 1: you know, if anything, that's going to exacerbate the problem.

237
00:14:51,480 --> 00:14:53,480
Speaker 1: A lot of people felt that your proposals and the

238
00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:56,440
Speaker 1: old book were kind of unrealistic, particularly when it comes

239
00:14:56,480 --> 00:15:00,200
Speaker 1: to the taxation of wealth and inheritance, because, as we know,

240
00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:03,960
Speaker 1: economists have throughout the decades have always said that a

241
00:15:04,040 --> 00:15:07,640
Speaker 1: wealth tax has made sense and that's not very distortionary

242
00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:10,720
Speaker 1: for various reasons, and yet it's something that has always

243
00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:15,720
Speaker 1: come up against political realities of people wanting to pass

244
00:15:15,880 --> 00:15:17,920
Speaker 1: to help their own children as a very kind of

245
00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:24,320
Speaker 1: instinctive thing, and that has translated into lower and lower

246
00:15:24,440 --> 00:15:28,680
Speaker 1: inheritance taxes, even just within countries, even if you're not

247
00:15:28,720 --> 00:15:30,600
Speaker 1: trying to if you're not managing to solve all of

248
00:15:30,680 --> 00:15:34,320
Speaker 1: the sort of global problems of of where wealth goes

249
00:15:34,480 --> 00:15:38,120
Speaker 1: and people not paying tax, do you see any scope

250
00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:40,720
Speaker 1: There are very few countries where you can see a

251
00:15:40,840 --> 00:15:44,720
Speaker 1: real support for inheritance taxes. And if you don't have that.

252
00:15:45,040 --> 00:15:46,720
Speaker 1: I don't see how you can do any other things

253
00:15:46,760 --> 00:15:49,680
Speaker 1: you're talking about. So I preferil well stacks of re

254
00:15:49,720 --> 00:15:52,240
Speaker 1: done stacks. And in fact, when stax and your well

255
00:15:52,320 --> 00:15:55,400
Speaker 1: stas are much more popular, you know, in every country

256
00:15:55,560 --> 00:15:58,560
Speaker 1: you can see a large masority support in favor of

257
00:15:58,880 --> 00:16:02,280
Speaker 1: billionaire DAGs or you always tax. And I think there

258
00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:05,880
Speaker 1: are good reasons why people prefer annual wealth stax or

259
00:16:06,040 --> 00:16:10,320
Speaker 1: property tax on large property owners rather than inheritance stax.

260
00:16:10,920 --> 00:16:13,400
Speaker 1: I think we need both, but I think the annual

261
00:16:13,520 --> 00:16:16,760
Speaker 1: weal stax will always be more important. And in fact,

262
00:16:16,800 --> 00:16:19,240
Speaker 1: it's always been more important if you get property tax

263
00:16:19,320 --> 00:16:22,760
Speaker 1: revenue are well stax revenue, you know in the US

264
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:24,800
Speaker 1: or fronts and other countries, it's always been a lot

265
00:16:24,840 --> 00:16:27,960
Speaker 1: bigger than than inheritance stex because the problem with inheritance

266
00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:30,640
Speaker 1: stax is that in the end you need to pay

267
00:16:30,800 --> 00:16:35,320
Speaker 1: tax out of your annual income, or if you don't

268
00:16:35,360 --> 00:16:37,160
Speaker 1: have enough anal income, then need to sell some of

269
00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:39,400
Speaker 1: the property to pay the tax, which for you know,

270
00:16:39,480 --> 00:16:41,960
Speaker 1: many people is pretty frightening. Well for people who would

271
00:16:41,960 --> 00:16:44,040
Speaker 1: have a lot of wealth billions, you know, you can

272
00:16:44,080 --> 00:16:46,080
Speaker 1: sell part of it to pay the tax. For people

273
00:16:46,120 --> 00:16:50,560
Speaker 1: who have only limited assets and inequid assets, they actually

274
00:16:50,640 --> 00:16:53,680
Speaker 1: prefer to pay a small annual tax of one or

275
00:16:53,760 --> 00:16:56,680
Speaker 1: two percent per year for twenty years rather than big

276
00:16:56,920 --> 00:16:59,240
Speaker 1: inheritance sex of search or ptuxam right away. So I

277
00:16:59,320 --> 00:17:01,720
Speaker 1: think it's there are no reason why people perceive it

278
00:17:01,800 --> 00:17:05,600
Speaker 1: this way. And you know, the focus on inheritent stacks

279
00:17:05,960 --> 00:17:09,240
Speaker 1: rather than annual weal stacks, I think is a is

280
00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:12,760
Speaker 1: a is a major mistake which has sometimes been made,

281
00:17:13,359 --> 00:17:16,160
Speaker 1: but which I don't think I've made it the same

282
00:17:16,200 --> 00:17:20,920
Speaker 1: that I really stressed the annual well stacks much more.

283
00:17:21,000 --> 00:17:23,000
Speaker 1: And and you will see if you look at the

284
00:17:23,200 --> 00:17:26,880
Speaker 1: opinion polls about the billionaire attack. Like in the US,

285
00:17:26,960 --> 00:17:30,639
Speaker 1: you know even Republican voters are in favor of it.

286
00:17:31,400 --> 00:17:35,280
Speaker 1: In France, Macon never had a majority of the public

287
00:17:35,359 --> 00:17:38,240
Speaker 1: opinion to repeat the well sta. This was the decision

288
00:17:38,560 --> 00:17:41,920
Speaker 1: of Maccon. You certainly it's well still downers were in

289
00:17:42,040 --> 00:17:44,440
Speaker 1: favor of it, but if you look at the opinion

290
00:17:44,520 --> 00:17:46,720
Speaker 1: polls and it never got a majority for that. And

291
00:17:46,800 --> 00:17:49,119
Speaker 1: I think it's a part of the reason why he

292
00:17:49,200 --> 00:17:51,879
Speaker 1: got into into travels, which is that he gave up

293
00:17:51,880 --> 00:17:53,760
Speaker 1: a lot of money to a small group of the

294
00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:56,480
Speaker 1: population at the same time raise the attacks on the

295
00:17:57,320 --> 00:18:00,119
Speaker 1: you know, normal people being energy at tax to to

296
00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:03,120
Speaker 1: go to work every morning and basically the two sum

297
00:18:03,200 --> 00:18:06,600
Speaker 1: of money work comparable money will get from the ax

298
00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:09,480
Speaker 1: when you gave it to the winds tax payer then

299
00:18:09,640 --> 00:18:12,440
Speaker 1: and this is a big part of the explanation of

300
00:18:12,560 --> 00:18:15,560
Speaker 1: the troubles, which is un into talk. Yeah, I think

301
00:18:15,600 --> 00:18:18,600
Speaker 1: there's a demand for physical justice, which takes different from

302
00:18:18,720 --> 00:18:21,840
Speaker 1: different countries, but I think progress were tax is part

303
00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:24,440
Speaker 1: of the solution. Finally, I'm just I'm fascinated when you

304
00:18:24,480 --> 00:18:27,480
Speaker 1: talk about we started by talking about whether or not

305
00:18:28,080 --> 00:18:30,360
Speaker 1: how important the World War One and World War two

306
00:18:30,520 --> 00:18:34,720
Speaker 1: or big events the depression was in changing the way

307
00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:38,040
Speaker 1: that people think and the assumptions people make. Um, do

308
00:18:38,200 --> 00:18:43,840
Speaker 1: you think that the urgent environmental challenge has the potential

309
00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:46,240
Speaker 1: to cause that kind of you know, throwing up of

310
00:18:46,400 --> 00:18:50,560
Speaker 1: ordinary relations um in your direction or is there a

311
00:18:50,640 --> 00:18:52,560
Speaker 1: risk actually when you think of the steps that have

312
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:54,960
Speaker 1: to be taken, you know, increasing the cost of energy

313
00:18:55,080 --> 00:18:58,600
Speaker 1: to households, many of whom are more spent a lot

314
00:18:58,640 --> 00:19:01,760
Speaker 1: of their income on energy. Do you worry that actually

315
00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:05,320
Speaker 1: the tackling climate change with the current system is actually

316
00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:10,600
Speaker 1: going to make it less bad. Well, I think you know,

317
00:19:10,720 --> 00:19:13,720
Speaker 1: there are many different types of crises that can that

318
00:19:13,920 --> 00:19:17,720
Speaker 1: can lead to a very rapid change in the way

319
00:19:17,800 --> 00:19:20,960
Speaker 1: we perceive the economic system. So I think, you know,

320
00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:23,679
Speaker 1: climate change is one of them, and and but there

321
00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:25,840
Speaker 1: are you know, you can have also more you know,

322
00:19:26,000 --> 00:19:29,280
Speaker 1: social conflict in the future. You can have other financial crisis.

323
00:19:29,320 --> 00:19:31,760
Speaker 1: You know, the two tho eight financial crisis itself, you

324
00:19:31,960 --> 00:19:34,080
Speaker 1: led to a complete change in a few years about

325
00:19:34,119 --> 00:19:37,520
Speaker 1: the common views about monetary policy. And you know, suddenly

326
00:19:37,640 --> 00:19:40,200
Speaker 1: the size of something for long balanche. It went all

327
00:19:40,280 --> 00:19:42,560
Speaker 1: the way to the World War to World warwer level

328
00:19:42,680 --> 00:19:44,720
Speaker 1: or even higher in the basis, just in a space

329
00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:48,040
Speaker 1: of a few years. So you have reactions to crises

330
00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:50,920
Speaker 1: which are not always in the right direction. In this

331
00:19:51,040 --> 00:19:53,760
Speaker 1: particular case, I'm not sure this was the right reaction.

332
00:19:53,880 --> 00:19:58,399
Speaker 1: Artists only designable reaction. But what I mean is that

333
00:19:58,760 --> 00:20:00,600
Speaker 1: you know there will be other crisis in the future.

334
00:20:01,640 --> 00:20:06,159
Speaker 1: The problem is that crisis in themselves are not you know,

335
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,040
Speaker 1: can be necessary to deliver change, but are never sufficient

336
00:20:09,160 --> 00:20:11,320
Speaker 1: to deliver the white kind of change. And so in

337
00:20:11,359 --> 00:20:15,119
Speaker 1: the claques of climate change, there's a risk that we

338
00:20:15,280 --> 00:20:19,760
Speaker 1: don't think enough about the change in the economic systems

339
00:20:19,840 --> 00:20:23,520
Speaker 1: that we need to put in place to solve both

340
00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:28,360
Speaker 1: the climate problem and the inequality problems. So to be concrete,

341
00:20:28,440 --> 00:20:30,919
Speaker 1: and I don't see anyway we can go to our

342
00:20:31,080 --> 00:20:36,159
Speaker 1: lower carbon emission with the level of inequality we have today,

343
00:20:36,280 --> 00:20:38,920
Speaker 1: because you know, as I show in my in my book,

344
00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:41,640
Speaker 1: you know, the top one person in the world where

345
00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:45,080
Speaker 1: the highest level of carbon emissions, you know, emit more carbons,

346
00:20:45,119 --> 00:20:47,399
Speaker 1: and the bottom fifty percent of the world population. So

347
00:20:47,400 --> 00:20:50,679
Speaker 1: if you don't start by tackling this, and you're missing

348
00:20:50,800 --> 00:20:53,320
Speaker 1: a big part of the overall problem. And also you

349
00:20:53,440 --> 00:20:57,280
Speaker 1: make it very difficult politically, you know, to make change

350
00:20:57,400 --> 00:21:01,680
Speaker 1: in the lifestyle and and way we use energy acceptable

351
00:21:01,840 --> 00:21:05,560
Speaker 1: for the middle class and and and the poor. So

352
00:21:06,040 --> 00:21:09,159
Speaker 1: you know, it could be that as the consequences of

353
00:21:09,280 --> 00:21:12,480
Speaker 1: climate change become more and more visible in Australia and

354
00:21:12,600 --> 00:21:16,320
Speaker 1: California in different parts of the world, the young generation

355
00:21:16,440 --> 00:21:19,080
Speaker 1: in particular, you know, put a strong pressure on the

356
00:21:19,320 --> 00:21:24,760
Speaker 1: politipal system to change the economic system. Um and you know,

357
00:21:24,840 --> 00:21:26,920
Speaker 1: there's a reason that it takes a long time before

358
00:21:27,000 --> 00:21:32,000
Speaker 1: the consequences are sufficiently visible and striking that this itself

359
00:21:32,200 --> 00:21:36,400
Speaker 1: is sufficient is enough to deliver the change in perception.

360
00:21:36,520 --> 00:21:39,639
Speaker 1: So I guess would be that the social crisis and

361
00:21:39,720 --> 00:21:44,240
Speaker 1: financial crisis are more likely to be the driver of change,

362
00:21:44,320 --> 00:21:47,000
Speaker 1: but you know, it's it can be a combination of

363
00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:50,040
Speaker 1: all of this. In any case, we're gonna just count

364
00:21:50,200 --> 00:21:54,560
Speaker 1: and crisis to deliver the right change. We need collectively

365
00:21:54,680 --> 00:21:59,000
Speaker 1: to think about the change, you know, the structural change

366
00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:02,159
Speaker 1: we want to bring to the system of properties or

367
00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:05,640
Speaker 1: system of education, system of taxation, so that we don't

368
00:22:05,880 --> 00:22:08,800
Speaker 1: rely at the last minute after the crazies and you know,

369
00:22:08,960 --> 00:22:15,880
Speaker 1: wrong solution or superficial solution like printing moneto solidity program funds. Tomasey,

370
00:22:15,920 --> 00:22:23,800
Speaker 1: thank you very much. Thank you. Well, that's all from

371
00:22:23,840 --> 00:22:27,000
Speaker 1: this bonus edition of Stephanomics, which was edited and produced

372
00:22:27,000 --> 00:22:30,040
Speaker 1: by Magnus Hendrickson and Scott Lamb. Scott is also the

373
00:22:30,119 --> 00:22:33,560
Speaker 1: executive producer of Stephonomics, and Francesco Levy is the head

374
00:22:33,600 --> 00:22:36,440
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg Podcast. We will all be back in a