The Washington Post calls it a book about income inequality that sheds light on the subject. They refer to the author’s efforts as Piketty’s Charge. Salon, the San Fran Progressive’s online mag, says the book has Conservatives terrified because the author writes calmly and reasonably about income inequality. Salon then remarkably claims it is not a Marxist book though it is. Paul Krugman, a socialist, can’t praise it enough. Paul Krugman hails it as “the most important economics book of the year.” Jack Lew, our Treasury Chief, has consulted with the author.
The book I am talking about is by the French Marxist economist, Thomas Piketty, and the book is “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” It is now an Amazon bestseller and it is gaining immense popularity among the U.S. left.
Piketty’s theories are based on inaccurate statistics meant to foster the destruction of wealth in order to equalize income. He seeks to overthrow our capitalist government and replace it with a collectivist government. He says that market economies “are potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based.”
In fairness, he is not only trying to overthrow our way of life, he wants to overthrow capitalism throughout the world.
He wants a worldwide tax on wealth and suggests an eighty percent tax rate on incomes over $500,000 to wipe out the wealthy.
But he’s no Marxist according to Salon.
Piketty’s solution to income inequality is to bring us all down to an equal level of misery. People will no longer be able to raise themselves out of misery with the help of the free market.
Who would bother working in such a society? In 1995, the Cato Institute, released the groundbreaking study, The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off, which showed that entitlements are so lucrative they create a disincentive to work.
An article by Michael Tanner published in the National Review Online and on the Cato Institute website titled, “Piketty Gets It Wrong” gives a quick rundown of why Piketty’s Marxism is wrong for the United States. I’ve included some points from the article below.
Piketty points out that capital is held by a small number of people, causing a rise in inequality. Inheritance can keep the capital in this relatively small group for generations. An answer to this, which he ignores, is to establish policies that expand the number of capitalists.
They could do that, for example, by allowing 401Ks to be expanded, permitting people access to some of their social security funds for investment, Instead, the Democrats are demanding that 401Ks be abolished. They are working on it as we speak.
Privatizing social security would not only expand capital to the masses but to their offspring because it’s inheritable. It would transfer wealth to future generations.
Socialists and Communists won’t consider it. They will only take from those who have and redistribute it.
The New York Times has written article-after-article about Piketty in the last two months. Picketty’s income inequality cure goes right along with Mr. Obama’s mantra for the 2014 and 2016 election.
It’s all in the open now, we are in the hands of communists, though Salon is still sticking with the deception.
The Democratic left wing is calling for communism and collectivism, but if you like the word socialism better, you can use that. It’s all the same thing in the end.
Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute says there are two ways to deal with income inequality – you either bring the top down or raise the bottom up. The leftists will only consider bringing the top down, despite the fact that the other has been proven effective.
“In Chile, for example,” Tanner says, “workers, through their pension accounts, own assets equal to approximately 60 percent of the country’s GDP. As José Piñera, the architect of Chile’s successful pension reform, points out, personal accounts “transform every worker into an owner of capital.”
Harvard is the publisher of Piketty’s new economic manifesto and the New York Times calls it the “Big-Think Book of the Moment.” Piketty is merely a tool for the U.S. Communists and Socialists who have been undercover for so long and who are rearing their ugly heads throughout our government, universities, and our media.
In their state of rapture, the New York Times said this: “…Mr. Piketty, fresh from a triumphant visit to Washington (where he met with members the Obama administration) was in New York, being shuttled from MSNBC to NPR. One devoted fan had even set up a Twitter feed, consisting of images of Mr. Piketty, boyishly handsome at 42, and inviting the verdict ‘hot or not.’”
A photo of Piketty, the left’s idea of “hot.”
Well, they are moonbats.
Kevin Williamson has an outstanding article in The National Review titled, Welcome to the Paradise of the Real. I put an excerpt here with the hope that it will entice you to read the full article. You won’t regret it, it’s brilliant.
Word Problem No. 1: It’s lunchtime for Mrs. Piketty’s second-grade class. Bobby has 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has 20 SweeTarts. Bobby and Jenny both like Gummi Worms and SweeTarts, but both like SweeTarts a little bit more, so Jenny trades three of her SweeTarts for four of Bobby’s Gummi Worms. Both are happy with this trade, so they do it again. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?
Word Problem No. 2: Mrs. Piketty is unhappy with the inequality in her second-grade classroom. Jenny’s 20 SweeTarts are valued much more highly than are Bobby’s 20 Gummi Worms, trading at a rate of 3:4. To even things out, Mrs. Piketty gives Bobby a voucher for seven SweeTarts. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?
Word Problem No. 3: Mrs. Piketty’s attempt to solve the problem of inequality in her classroom has yielded unsatisfactory results. Bobby has his 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has her 20 SweeTarts, and SweeTarts still trade for Gummi Worms at a rate of 3:4. So Mrs. Piketty enacts some new policies. First, she hires Bobby as a hall monitor and decrees that hall monitors receive a minimum income of at least ten SweeTarts or the equivalent value in Gummi Worms. Also, she decrees that the high price of SweeTarts — three of them cost four Gummi Worms — is oppressive, but she’s not an all-the-way-to-the-wall outright red, either, more of a social-democrat type with a subscription to The Nation, so she simply enacts some counteracting price supports for Gummi Worms, decreeing that they cannot be traded at a price less than 13/15th of a SweeTart. She enlists Mrs. Yellen from the next classroom over to provide zero-interest financing for the purchase of up to five SweeTarts per lunch period, increases Bobby’s voucher allowance to nine SweeTarts per lunch period, and offsets that on her budget with a “fairness” tax of two SweeTarts per lunch period on Jenny, who is the sole member of her tax bracket. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?
Answers: (1.) 40; (2.) 40; (3.) 40. There are only 40 pieces of candy, and rules, vouchers, taxes, zero-interest loans, redistribution, and mandates do not magic more pieces of candy into existence. If Jenny does not like the trading price imposed by Mrs. Piketty, she can keep all of her SweeTarts, while Bobby gets none. If Mrs. Piketty sends out her second-grade tactical SWAT unit to seize Jenny’s SweeTarts and put some serious asset-forfeiture and social-by-God-justice up in her smug little 1-percenter face, Jenny can still leave her SweeTarts at home, eating them before or after school, and maybe even save them up in the hopes that her third-grade teacher next year will not be a howling moonbat. Faced with that inconvenient reality, Mrs. Piketty may demand the repatriation of these SweeTart assets and denounce Jenny as an “economic traitor,” but she does not have any real power outside her classroom. Plus, Jenny and her SweeTarts are sort of popular, and she’s a pretty good student to boot, and so there are other classrooms that would just love to have her, with Mr. Lee’s nicely air-conditioned classroom across the hall offering some very attractive laissez-faire policies vis-à-vis SweeTarts and confectionery gains in general.
Forty is forty is forty, 10 times 4, 8 times 5, 6.32455532034 squared, 23 plus 17. You can set the trading ratio of apples to oranges however you like, but if you have 20 of each, you have 40 pieces of fruit at any price — and the only way to bring more of it into the world is to plant trees, cultivate them, and pick the fruit.
Which is to say: Reality is not optional. continue reading…
Mr. Williamson gives a clear picture of the “howling moonbat” and the “distribution fairy” and what we can expect from their theories.
The left’s solution to income inequality is a pie-in-the-sky political, ideological solution but it has nothing to do with economic reality. They believe government creates jobs, but jobs for what purpose? If there is no demand, the job is useless. The leftists want the government to create jobs and mandate a salary for everyone. How will this grow the economy or anything for that matter?
The leftists think the government can create more by redistributing when this theory has been proven wrong time and again.
The poor are our business but what do we want for the poor? Do we want more things given them courtesy of those who are not poor or do we want them to be able to pick themselves up out of poverty?
How can we get them a better education and a better healthcare system – by doing more of what we are doing? Tighter controls from the unionized school system and more Medicaid? Will that do it? Who really believes that works? Certainly no one who has been involved with either system believes it.
Why do leftists believe the government is the only place to create jobs? What jobs do they create besides union jobs? In contrast, what does the private sector create in the way of jobs? Since the private sector doesn’t have a guaranteed income no matter what the level of performance, the private sector actually has to create something. They have to perform for their reward.
The leftists have a decidedly negative view of their fellow man. They believe a certain portion of the population has nothing to offer and it is up to them to take care of all these losers. It would never occur to them that everyone has something to offer and everyone can contribute in some way to their own success.
The Marxist solution to income inequality outlined by Piketty and embraced by the U.S. left at the expense of freedom and reality will be marched around from now until November and again for the 2016 election. The communists are now out in the open – brazenly so. They no longer need to hide. They are counting on Americans to be ignorant enough and jealous enough to go along with their collectivist, tyrannical solutions.
They know best. We the people no longer even need to think. Paul Krugman, Thomas Piketty, the New York Times, and Barack Obama will think for us.