{"title":"皮凯蒂的一些问题:一种内部批判","authors":"A. Tapper","doi":"10.25071/1874-6322.40304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thomas Piketty’s evidence on wealth distribution trends in Capital in the Twenty-First Century shows that – contra his own interpretation – there has been little rise in wealth inequality in Europe and America since the 1970s. This article relates that finding to the other principal trends in Piketty’s analysis: the capital/national income ratio trend, the capital-labor split of total incomes and the income inequality trend. Given that wealth inequality is not rising markedly, what can we deduce about the putative causes that might be operating upstream? Only the capital-labor split looks like a plausible explanation of the wealth inequality trend.","PeriodicalId":142300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Income Distribution®","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some problems in Piketty: an internal critique\",\"authors\":\"A. Tapper\",\"doi\":\"10.25071/1874-6322.40304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thomas Piketty’s evidence on wealth distribution trends in Capital in the Twenty-First Century shows that – contra his own interpretation – there has been little rise in wealth inequality in Europe and America since the 1970s. This article relates that finding to the other principal trends in Piketty’s analysis: the capital/national income ratio trend, the capital-labor split of total incomes and the income inequality trend. Given that wealth inequality is not rising markedly, what can we deduce about the putative causes that might be operating upstream? Only the capital-labor split looks like a plausible explanation of the wealth inequality trend.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40304\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Income Distribution®","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
托马斯•皮凯蒂(Thomas Piketty)在《21世纪资本论》(Capital in Twenty-First Century)中关于财富分配趋势的证据表明——与他自己的解释相反——自上世纪70年代以来，欧洲和美国的财富不平等几乎没有加剧。本文将这一发现与皮凯蒂分析中的其他主要趋势联系起来:资本/国民收入比率趋势、总收入的资本-劳动分割趋势和收入不平等趋势。鉴于财富不平等并没有明显加剧，我们能推断出哪些可能在上游发挥作用的假定原因呢?只有资本-劳动的分裂看起来是对财富不平等趋势的合理解释。
Thomas Piketty’s evidence on wealth distribution trends in Capital in the Twenty-First Century shows that – contra his own interpretation – there has been little rise in wealth inequality in Europe and America since the 1970s. This article relates that finding to the other principal trends in Piketty’s analysis: the capital/national income ratio trend, the capital-labor split of total incomes and the income inequality trend. Given that wealth inequality is not rising markedly, what can we deduce about the putative causes that might be operating upstream? Only the capital-labor split looks like a plausible explanation of the wealth inequality trend.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
