Debating Piketty’s theory on how wealth begets wealth, widens the economic gap
2014-05-13 22:38:14


GWEN IFILL: Next: the second of a two-part look at a bestseller that’s provoking discussion and debate about inequality and growth in America.(1)
GWEN IFILL:下一步: 第二的两个部分看看一本畅销书,是挑衅的讨论和辩论的不平等和在美国的增长。

The book is called “Capital in the 21st Century” by the French economist Thomas Piketty.(2)
这本书是由法国经济学家托马斯 · 皮克提叫"在 21 世纪的资本"。

Last night, economics correspondent Paul Solman laid out a key part of his thesis: Wealth, and the income derived from it, magnifies the problems of inequality over time.(3)
昨晚,经济学记者保罗 Solman 奠定了他的论文的一个关键部分: 财富和由它,所得的收入随着时间的推移放大了不平等的问题。

Paul talked to Piketty, who explained the heart of his argument.(4)
保罗谈过皮克提,他解释说他的论点的核心。

THOMAS PIKETTY, Author, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”: Everybody knew what the rate of return was and that it was 4 or 5, and not 2 or 3 or 6 or 7. These numbers were important.(5)
托马斯 · 皮克提、 作者、"资本在二十一世纪": 每个人都知道的回报率是什么和它是 4 或 5,和不 2 或 3 或 6 或 7。这些数字是重要的。

PAUL SOLMAN: They’re of particular importance to Piketty because his book’s new contribution to economics is said to be this very simple and, to him, ominous equation: R is greater than G.(6)
PAUL SOLMAN:他们对皮克提特别重要的因为他的书对经济学的新贡献据说是这非常简单,而且对他不祥方程: R 是大于 G.

R is for the return on capital, historical 4 to 5 percent a year.(7)
R 是资本,一年历史的 4 到 5%的回报。

And G stands for economic growth, for most of human history, less than 0.1 percent a year, almost zero, because population grew slowly and agricultural productivity more slowly still.(8)
G 站立为经济的增长,人类历史上的大部分小于 0.1%一年,几乎为零,因为人口增长缓慢和农业生产力更慢仍然。

So, if R is growing at 4-5 percent a year in economies that are barely growing at all, it’s pretty obvious that those who have the capital, the rich, will keep getting richer, and inequality will grow.(9)
所以,如果 R 在一年中几乎不会在所有日益增长的经济体 4-5%增长,是很明显,那些有资本,富人,也将会越来越富裕,和不平等将会增长。

THOMAS PIKETTY: And this is, I believe, the force that explains the very large concentration of wealth that we had up until World War I.(10)
THOMAS PIKETTY:这是我相信,那说明我们已经到一次世界大战的财富很大集中的力量。

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, early in the 20th century, things did begin to change.(11)
PAUL SOLMAN:现在,在 20 世纪初的事情才开始改变。

Inequality fell, for so many decades that economists imagined a new law: after a certain stage of development, increasing equality would become the norm.(12)
不平等下降了,那么多几十年来经济学家们想象的一项新法律: 在某一阶段的发展后, 增加平等将成为常态。

But Piketty has a different explanation of what’s called the great compression in wages and wealth: It was a fluke of history.(13)
但皮克提了一个不同的解释,所谓的工资和财富的极大压缩: 它是历史的侥幸。

He thinks we’re back to R — return — being greater than G — growth — and with capital returns growing and growth slowing, inequality will just get worse and worse.(14)
他认为我们回到 R — — 返回 — — 大于 G — — 增长 — — 和与日益增长的资本回报率和增长放缓,不平等就会变糟。

GWEN IFILL: Thanks to Paul. Now we get two takes on Piketty’s thesis.(15)
GWEN IFILL:谢谢你对保罗。现在我们,获得两个皮克提的论文。

Heather Boushey is executive director and chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a liberal research center.(16)
希瑟 · 主力军是执行董事兼首席经济学家为公平的增长,自由研究中心华盛顿中心。

And Kevin Hassett is resident scholar and director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.(17)
而凯文 · 哈西特是驻地的学者和经济政策研究在保守派智库美国企业研究所的主任。

Thank you both for joining us.(18)
谢谢你这两个加入我们。

Heather Boushey, what is it about this pretty dense economic theory that has caught fire?(19)
希瑟 · 主力军,是什么这很密集的经济理论,捉住了火吗?

HEATHER BOUSHEY, Washington Center for Equitable Growth: Well, I think first and foremost, it’s the intensity of his data.(20)
HEATHER BOUSHEY, Washington Center for Equitable Growth:好,我认为最重要的是,是他的数据的强度。

Thomas Piketty with a bunch of other people put together all this data on income, especially high incomes and wealth, looking at a bunch of countries over a long period of time.(21)
托马斯 · 皮克提与一群其他人放在一起所有此类数据收入,尤其是高收入和财富,看着一群国家在很长一段时间内。

And from that, he developed this idea that R is greater than G, that if the return on capital,(22)
从那,他发明了 R 是大于 G,这个想法,如果资本,回报

the return on stocks of wealth and assets that people have is greater than what the economy is actually producing, greater than growth, well, then those piles of money will just get bigger and bigger.(23)
财富和资产的人有的股票回报率大于什么经济也在实际生产、 更大的增长,比,然后这些成堆的钱只会变得更大、 更大。

And he didn’t develop that because it’s some theory that he was just coming up with in his office.(24)
他没发展,因为这是某些理论说他只来了在他的办公室。

He developed that because actually looking at the data and looking at — and what that data told him.(25)
他开发了,因为实际上看数据看 — — 和数据告诉他。

So it’s very, very powerful, and in some ways very different than the way a lot of economics work is done, because it’s not starting from theory in some ways.(26)
所以它是非常、 非常强大,并在某些方面非常不同的方式做了大量的经济工作是,因为它不从理论的一些方法在开始。

It’s really starting from what we see.(27)
它从我们所看到的真正开始。

And what he saw was that high incomes lead to high piles of money, high concentrations of capital.(28)
他看到的是高收入导致高桩钱,浓度高的资本。

And once you have that money, it becomes much easier for it just to accumulate and accumulate, and that gets us to where we are today.(29)
一旦有了这笔钱,它就变得容易,它只是为了积累和积累,和,就是今天我们在哪里。

GWEN IFILL: Kevin Hassett, what’s wrong about his approach and his conclusions?(30)
GWEN IFILL:凯文议价,关于他的方针,他的结论有什么不对吗?

KEVIN HASSETT, American Enterprise Institute: Well, sure.(31)
KEVIN HASSETT, American Enterprise Institute:嗯,当然。

I think that Thomas, if he has named his book inequality, then he would have a classic that would stand the test of time because his data on inequality, as Heather mentioned, is very good.(32)
我认为托马斯,是否他已命名为他的书不平等现象,然后他会有一个典型的将站立时间的考验,因为他的数据上不平等,如希瑟提到的很好。

He’s worked with co-authors to gather tax data from around the world. And it’s really authoritative as a measure of inequality.(33)
他被同共同作者收集来自世界各地的税务数据。它是作为一项措施不平等的真正权威。

But he didn’t call his book inequality. He called it “Capital,” and he’s really, really confused about capital.(34)
但他没打电话给他的书不平等。他称它为"资本,"和他是真的,真的很困惑的是资本。

And all of this discussion about capital, I think, is in the end going to go down in economics as a historic blunder.(35)
所有此讨论关于资本,我认为,是在结束了会去经济学作为一个历史性的错误。

I discussed him at a conference in Washington when he was there a couple of weeks ago, and I really don’t think he defended the capital part of the book very well.(36)
我讨论他在华盛顿一次会议时他在那里几个星期前,和真的不认为他为辩护书的资本部分很好。

But, to be clear, I think that it’s a courageous book, and I love when people shoot for the fences and try to take a really controversial topic and make it accessible to the populace.(37)
但是,也要清楚,我认为它是勇敢的书,我爱当人们拍摄栅栏和尝试采取真的很有争议的话题,让民众能够访问它。

But, in the end, the capital side of his book is really fundamentally flawed. And if you like, we could go into why.(38)
但是,在结束时,他的书的资本一边真的根本的缺陷。如果你愿意,我们可以去到为什么。

GWEN IFILL: Well, let me start with — let me go back and stick with the inequality part for a moment.(39)
GWEN IFILL:好,让我先 — — 让我回去和坚持了一会儿不平等部分。

Do you agree, Kevin Hassett, that the argument he makes, that the real problem here is that people at the top are earning more and people at the bottom are flat,(40)
凯文议价,是平的他使这里真正的问题是在顶部的人挣得多的参数和底部的人,您同意吗

is that correct? Is that the reason for the gap we see?(41)
是这样吗?那是我们看到的差距的理由吗?

KEVIN HASSETT: Well, that part of what he documents is correct. But even that part is very incomplete, because what he analyzes is pre-tax and pre-transfer income.(42)
KEVIN HASSETT:嗯,他的文件的部分是正确的。但即使这部分是非常不完整,因为他的分析是税前和预出让收入。

But the fact is that, since 1970, the share of income going to the people at the top has skyrocketed in the U.S.,(43)
但事实是 1970 年以来,在顶部的人去的收入份额猛增在美国,

but, at the same time, transfer programs to the poor have skyrocketed as well, even more as a share of GDP, and he completely ignores those.(44)
但在同时,传送程序向穷人飙升以及,甚至更作为 GDP 中的比例,他完全忽略那些。

And my view is that, if we are going to ask is society just or less just than it used to be, then we need to look at everything society is doing.(45)
我的看法是如果我们想问只是社会或较不只是比以前要然后我们需要看看社会所做的一切。

And he doesn’t. He only looks at before government intervention that already exists.(46)
他不会。他只是看看之前已经存在的政府干预。

GWEN IFILL: Heather Boushey?(47)
GWEN IFILL:希瑟 · 主力军?

HEATHER BOUSHEY: Well, I think that — I appreciate Kevin’s point about the data.(48)
HEATHER BOUSHEY:嗯,我认为 — — 我很感激凯文的点有关的数据。

But I there’s a couple of important things to bear in mind.(49)
但我有的几个重要的事情要牢记。

First of all, the United States does a far worse job than other countries in redistributing income from the top to the bottom.(50)
首先,美国没有远更差的工作比其他国家的重新分配收入从顶部到底部。

So we haven’t seen the kinds of social programs that Kevin talked about really making the kind of difference that we would like to see.(51)
那么我们没见过种凯文商量真的很差,我们想要看到的那种的社会程序。

But, importantly, I think one of the things that really comes clear in Thomas’ book is that, as you see this capital concentrating in the hands of a small number of individuals or families,(52)
但重要的是,我觉得真的是托马斯的书中明确的事情之一是,正如你看到的这种资本集中在少量的个人或家庭,手中

that has really deep and important implications for economic mobility and economic opportunity.(53)
那有经济流动性和经济机会真的很深和重要的影响。

If you’re seeing high incomes calcifying into tomorrow’s stock of capital, that means that today’s children who aren’t in those high-wealth families don’t have the same opportunities.(54)
如果你看到钙化变成明天的股票资本的高收入,这意味着今天的孩子不在那些高财富家庭中没有相同的机会。

And we’re seeing a lot of economic evidence that shows that mobility is a problem in the United States, the United States is less economically mobile than other countries.(55)
我们看到很多经济证据显示流动性是美国的一个问题,美国是比其他国家少经济上移动。

And what Thomas’ book does is really gives us a lot of data to dig into that and understand it.(56)
什么托马斯的书不会是真的给了我们很多数据挖入那和理解它。

GWEN IFILL: And what the book seems also to do, Kevin Hassett, is say there is not really a way out of it that’s doable?(57)
GWEN IFILL:和什么书似乎也要做,凯文议价,说真的没有办法解决,是可行的吗?

KEVIN HASSETT: Right. And that’s the part of the book that’s really fundamentally flawed. And I think it’s really easy to explain.(58)
KEVIN HASSETT:权利。这真正从根本上有缺陷的那本书的一部分。而且我认为它是真的很容易解释。

So, basically, if you look at what capital is — and so what do you think of when you think of capital?(59)
所以,基本上,如果你看看什么资本是 — — 和所以你觉得当你想到的资本吗?

You think of — as a blast furnace or an industrial robot or a machine.(60)
你认为的 — — 作为高炉炉或工业机器人或一台机器。

And if you look at what’s been going on in his data, then the share of income going to capital in the United States has gone up over time.(61)
如果你看什么一直在他的数据,然后随着时间的推移涨了去美国的资本收入的份额。

And what he does is, he gives a theory for why that’s going to continue, and eventually capital is going to have everything, unless we have 80 percent tax rates and so on.(62)
他做的是,他给一个理论,那为什么要继续,并最终资本要拥有的一切,除非我们有 80%的税率,等等。

But the problem that he has is that his story for why that could happen, why capital will ultimately get all the income, is that we’re going to substitute capital for workers,(63)
但他的问题是为什么,可能会发生,为什么资本最终将获得所有的收入,他的故事是我们要以资本来替代的工人,

and so we’re going to have robots making hamburgers and so on, which is a story — it could be true that that’s something that we need to think about.(64)
所以我们要有机器人制作汉堡包等,这是一个故事 — — 这可能是真的这是我们需要思考的东西。

But the problem is that the uptrend in the capital income share in his data —(65)
但问题是资本收入的升势分享在他的数据 — —

and there’s a French economist that has pointed this out and a German economist as well — is 100 percent attributable since 1970 to an increase in rate of return on housing.(66)
有已指出此出法国经济学家和德国经济学家,以及 — — 是 100%原因是自 1970 年以来的住房回报率增加。

It’s basically kind of measured by a housing bubble.(67)
基本上它是种衡量房地产泡沫。

And so he’s built this whole artifice to explain why capital is going to be substituting for labor and labor income share is going to go to zero, but the trend that he is trying to explain is all housing.(68)
所以他建了这整个的诡计,解释为何要对劳动和劳动收入代资本份额要去为零,但他想要解释的趋势是所有房屋。

And there’s no way that you can substitute a house for a worker. Housing is not substitutable. And so his theory is fundamentally flawed because of that.(69)
并不是你可以取代一座房子一名工人。房屋是不可替代的。于是,他的理论从根本上说由于那有缺陷。

GWEN IFILL: Kevin Hassett says he goes off the rails with his theory.(70)
GWEN IFILL:凯文 · 哈西特说他与他的理论去偏离了轨道。

HEATHER BOUSHEY: Well, I don’t think so. We have seen income inequality rising for virtually my entire life. That is the economy that we have.(71)
HEATHER BOUSHEY:嗯,我不认为如此。我们看到了几乎一生为上升的收入不平等。这是我们的经济。

And Kevin is talking about are — you know, he’s sort of building on economic models that assume that the reality that we have been experiencing for these decades is actually somehow not normal,(72)
凯文是说大约是 — — 你知道,他是经济发展模式的假设我们经历了这几十年来的现实是其实某种程度上不正常的建筑的排序

that our economy doesn’t just automatically create more inequality and that it is not calcifying into greater wealth inequality.(73)
我们的经济并不只是自动创建更多的不平等和那它不钙化成更大的财富不平等。

That’s what the data is showing us. And I think we really have to dig deep and understand what that means. Now, how we solve that and what we do about it, that does seem…(74)
这就是数据向我们展示。我想我们真的要深挖和理解什么意思。现在,我们如何解决,和我们怎么办它,那看起来......

GWEN IFILL: That was my very next question.(75)
GWEN IFILL:这是我下一个问题。

HEATHER BOUSHEY: That seems very challenging.(76)
HEATHER BOUSHEY:这看起来非常具有挑战性。

Thomas talks about taxing wealth. You know, we already tax wealth all across America. We tax houses. We have property taxes, so we do do that.(77)
托马斯谈征税的财富。你知道,我们已经在美国各地都征税的财富。我们税的房子。我们有房产税,所以我们做的。

We do tax inheritances, to a lesser degree now than we used to. So there are models that we can look to.(78)
我们税继承,我们比以前更程度。所以有模型,我们可以期待。

And the United States first introduced an income tax and a wealth tax at the dawn of the 20th century because we didn’t want to be a country that was dependent on old money.(79)
美国第一次介绍了所得税和财产税在 20 世纪的黎明因为我们不想要一个依赖于老钱的国家。

We wanted a vibrant economy, where somebody could come in and they could make their fortune with a good innovative idea.(80)
我们想要一个充满活力的经济体系,哪里有人可以进来和他们可能使他们有良好的创新理念的时运。

What we are risking if we don’t act is that those good ideas won’t see the light of day because a small number of people have all the capital, and you don’t have that kind of vibrancy.(81)
如果我们不采取行动我们都冒的危险是那些好的想法不会看见光的一天,因为少数人有所有的资本,而你没有那种活力。

GWEN IFILL: Kevin Hassett, how to act?(82)
GWEN IFILL:凯文议价,如何行动?

KEVIN HASSETT: Well, first of all, you have to say that just because our nation has problems, that doesn’t mean that Piketty is right.(83)
KEVIN HASSETT:首先,你要说只是因为我们的国家有问题,这并不意味着皮克提是正确。

And the fact is that he is right that income inequality, pre-tax, pre-transfer, has been going up, but he ignores transfers.(84)
而事实是他是对收入不平等,税前,预转让,已一直在涨,但他忽略了转让。

And it just can’t be defensible intellectually to do an analysis that’s partial on the inequality side and avoid taxes and transfers completely, not even introduce them into the discussion.(85)
它只是不能站得住脚,智力上要做的分析,是局部的不平等一边和避免税收和转移完全地,甚至不引入他们讨论。

And on the capital side, you’re basically going to side with him if you think you can substitute a house for a worker.(86)
并在资本一方,你基本上去边跟他如果你认为你可以代替一个房子一名工人。

If you can, then you’re with Piketty. If you’re not, you’re not. And I don’t think a serious person should frankly be with him.(87)
如果可以的话,你就与皮克提。如果你不是,你不是。我不认为一个严肃的人应该坦率地和他在一起。

And all of his policy prescriptions come from this really, really flawed analysis.(88)
所有他的政策处方真的是从这来,真的有缺陷的分析。

And, so, therefore, we could talk about what optimal tax policy should be,(89)
,因此,因此,我们可以谈什么最优税收政策应该是,

but I don’t think that the motivation to have that discussion should be his flawed analysis.(90)
但我不认为这一讨论的动机应该是他有缺陷的分析。

GWEN IFILL: It sounds like there are serious people on both sides of this argument,(91)
GWEN IFILL:听起来好像有很严肃的人,双方的这一论点,

I think we can agree, among them, two people we’re talking to right here, Kevin Hassett and Heather Boushey. Thank you very much.(92)
我想我们可以同意,在他们之中,我们要谈就在这里,凯文 · 哈西特和希瑟 · 主力军的两人。谢谢。

HEATHER BOUSHEY: Thank you.(93)
HEATHER BOUSHEY:谢谢。

KEVIN HASSETT: Thanks, Gwen.(94)
KEVIN HASSETT:谢谢你,格温。


All News Articles fetched from PBS RSS Feeds and copyrighted by pbs.org