Popular in Economics

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

Economic History

Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle

Boston College James E. Anderson

Economics

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Yale University Barbara Biasi

Economics

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Peterson Institute for International Economics Olivier Blanchard

Economics

Markets with Search Friction

London School of Economics Sir Christopher Pissarides

Visions of Inequality

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Economic Inequalities

View more figures from City University of New York

View the page of Branko Milanovic

Read the Harvard University Press Book

Branko Milanovic charts 200 years of the fascinating history of the discourse on inequality through portraits of six key economists, from Quesnay to Kuznets

Image courtesy of interviewee. October 25, 2023

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses the evolution of economic thought regarding inequality, focusing on the contributions of various theorists, including the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx. It emphasizes how the understanding of social inequalities has shifted over time, particularly highlighting contemporary issues like racial discrimination and gender inequality, which have become more prominent than in earlier economic analyses.

The Physiocrats are credited with introducing a detailed class structure and the concept of surplus, which they believed was essential for societal function. Their work aimed at influencing French policies and described the social dynamics of their time.

Adam Smith's contribution was significant as he shifted the measure of societal wealth to focus on the welfare of the majority rather than just the elite. This video laid the groundwork for later discussions on income distribution. David Ricardo further refined these ideas, arguing that improving income distribution could lead to economic growth, contrasting with the view that efficiency and equity are always at odds.

Marx builds on Ricardo's foundations but offers a broader analysis that integrates history, philosophy, and economics. He posits that class relations in capitalist societies inherently affect income distribution, leading to inequalities. This video also examines the perspectives of economists like Pareto who argued for the invariability of income distribution across societies, suggesting a persistent elite regardless of political systems.

The contemporary analysis of inequality is framed as emphasizing sectors rather than classes, focusing on productivity differences between agriculture and manufacturing. The narrative underscores how recent events, like the global financial crisis, have revived discussions about class structure and systemic inequalities. Ultimately, it posits a more politically aware framework for analyzing inequality today, recognizing the importance of race, gender, and economic mobility in understanding social dynamics.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Changing Perspectives on Inequality**: The understanding of inequality has shifted over time, with contemporary issues such as racial discrimination and gender inequality becoming more prominent compared to historical perspectives in the 19th century.

2. **Physiocrats' Contributions**: The Physiocrats introduced key concepts in economic analysis, including a detailed class structure and the idea of economic surplus, which became fundamental in understanding societal functioning and class dynamics in pre-revolutionary France.

3. **Smith and Ricardo's Class Structures**: Adam Smith highlighted that the wealth of a society should be measured by the welfare of the majority class, a departure from earlier views focused on the wealth of the elite. David Ricardo later offered a more defined structure of three classes (workers, capitalists, landlords) that a robust framework for analyzing income distribution.

4. **Marx's Critique of Capitalism**: Marx expanded on Ricardo's ideas, arguing that under capitalism, the relationships between production and distribution are inherently linked. He believed that class structure and wealth concentration would persist, with the potential for worsening inequalities as labor and capital dynamics evolve.

5. **Contemporary Issues of Class and Inequality**: The video discusses the resurgence of interest in class structures and inequalities following events like the global financial crisis, revealing systemic disparities that challenge the notion of meritocracy and illuminate political and economic inequalities based on race, gender, and class.

Export as PDF
Here are key quotes extracted from the video, centered around themes of inequality, class structure, and economic theory:

1. **On Inequality Across Time**:
- "So when we talk about inequality within our own societies, I think we now take a different attitude than, for example, Canadian or Smith or Marx. It is just that the issues today are different."

2. **Contributions of Physiocrats**:
- "The first one was the introduction of class structure in the analysis that was not present before."
- "They introduced the class structure for the first time in economics and defined the surplus."

3. **Economic Surplus**:
- "For the Physiocrats, that surplus is necessary for society to exist and function."

4. **Class Structure and Economic Change**:
- "His objective was let us sort of show the current situation of France and somewhat idealized, embellished situation that would exist if our recommendations were accepted."

5. **Wealth Measurement**:
- "One very important point that he made is... wealth of a society is measured by how well the class that is the most numerous and whose contribution to the welfare of the society is the largest. How that class is doing."

6. **Income Distribution and Economic Growth**:
- "If you have a bad income distribution where most of the income or money goes into the hands of landlords, you do not have an expanding economy."
- "He proposes to you, to me, to everybody... that distribution improvement... goes together with increased output."

7. **Marx's Perspective on Capital**:
- "He believed once you have defined the... endowments, you really have the distribution."

8. **Pareto's Law**:
- "The income distribution cannot be changed. In other words, income distribution is more or less invariable regardless of the type of society you have."

9. **Political Significance of Income Inequality**:
- "You have to have... a view of society, which is politically... transposable or actually politically salient to be sold to people."

10. **Optimism About Inequality Studies**:
- "I'm really optimistic for... the future... the fall of communist... opened up... the issue of class structure again."

These quotes illustrate various perspectives on economic structures, class dynamics, and the evolving conversation around inequality, drawing from traditional economic theories to contemporary issues.

Export as PDF
Finding similar articles to the video, which discusses historical perspectives on inequality, class structure, and the evolution of economic thought, specifically looking at influential figures like the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, can be approached by searching for themes in economics, social inequality, historical analysis of economic theories, and class structures. Here are some topics and potential similar articles based on the themes present in your video:

1. **Historical Perspectives on Inequality**:
- **Article**: “A Historical Perspective on Economic Inequality” - This article may analyze how different historical events impacted economic structures and inequality.
- **Article**: “Inequality Through Time: Class Structures and Economic Thought” - This could discuss the evolution of economic thought in relation to social classes.

2. **Economic Theories and Class Analysis**:
- **Article**: “Classical Political Economy: The Contributions of Smith and Ricardo” - This article could explore the contributions of Smith and Ricardo in depth.
- **Article**: “Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Insights on Class and Production” - This article may delve into Marx's perspectives on class, production, and distribution.

3. **Modern Discussions of Inequality**:
- **Article**: “The Resurgence of Inequality: Causes and Consequences” - An exploration of how contemporary dynamics in capitalism contribute to growing inequality.
- **Article**: “Economic Growth and Inequality: Is There a Trade-off?” - This article would examine the relationship between economic growth and income distribution.

4. **Comparative Analyses of Economic Systems**:
- **Article**: “Socialism vs. Capitalism: Class Structures and Economic Performance” - This might evaluate the class systems within different economic models like socialism and capitalism.
- **Article**: “The Role of the State in Income Distribution: Historical Perspectives” - This could relate to the discussion of the state's role in economic distribution as mentioned in the video.

5. **Theoretical Frameworks in Economic Inequality**:
- **Article**: “Revisiting the Law of the Falling Rate of Profit” - An academic exploration of Marx’s theories regarding profit rates in relation to capitalism.
- **Article**: “Examining Inequality through the Lens of Pareto's Principle” - Discussing how Pareto's theories apply to modern economic convideos.

6. **Intersectionality and Inequality**:
- **Article**: “Understanding Inequality: A Gender and Racial Perspective” - This article might discuss how intersectionality plays a critical role in discussions of economic inequality today.

By utilizing academic databases, university libraries, and online journals, you would be able to find articles connected to these themes that analyze inequality, class structure, and economic thought in both historical and contemporary convideos.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.105 --> 00:04.245
The authors that I mentioned and actually ourselves, look at in inequality,

00:04.665 --> 00:09.565
always in function or what we perceive at a given moment to

00:09.585 --> 00:12.765
be crucial for the determination, equality.

00:12.825 --> 00:16.845
So when we talk about inequality between within our own societies,

00:17.085 --> 00:20.925
I think we now take a different attitude than, for example,

00:21.325 --> 00:26.045
Canadian or Smit or Marx. It is just that the issues today are different.

00:26.065 --> 00:29.645
So in that sense, I think that the issues of racial discrimination,

00:29.785 --> 00:34.365
gender inequality, play much bigger role today than they played,

00:34.505 --> 00:37.245
in the 19th century. It's not that they didn't exist then,

00:37.665 --> 00:40.685
but they were overlooked because there were other issues.

00:41.165 --> 00:45.405
I think the Physiocrats had, in my opinion, two important contributions.

00:45.985 --> 00:46.465
Uh,

00:46.465 --> 00:50.965
the first one was the introduction of class structure in the analysis that was

00:50.965 --> 00:51.805
not present before.

00:52.265 --> 00:57.245
And they have a very detailed class structure and especially detailed and

00:57.525 --> 01:02.525
interesting class structure. At the top were, were three classes,

01:02.865 --> 01:07.005
clergy, aristocracy and government, share the surplus.

01:07.185 --> 01:08.845
So the second big contribution,

01:08.845 --> 01:13.845
which actually was something that marks highly sort of how should they

01:13.845 --> 01:15.605
say appreciated and pointed out,

01:16.145 --> 01:20.445
is the realization that the economic activity produces something which you can

01:20.445 --> 01:24.845
call surplus. In other words, for kne the, or the physiocrats,

01:24.915 --> 01:28.965
that surplus is necessary for the society to exist in the function.

01:29.225 --> 01:32.605
So there will be a class called it unproductive class like clergy,

01:32.715 --> 01:36.445
aristocracy and government that provide the service.

01:37.025 --> 01:40.765
But that pro service has to be paid from somebody and it's paid out of the

01:40.765 --> 01:44.245
service. The context of his time is pre-revolutionary France.

01:44.905 --> 01:49.365
The objective that physios had was to change French

01:50.045 --> 01:53.965
internal policies. That's why invented the terms less fair and less,

01:54.985 --> 01:58.845
which meant essentially less fair, like what it means, sorry, today.

01:59.345 --> 02:03.085
And CE passe was the abolition of the internal barriers and tariffs.

02:03.505 --> 02:07.965
So this was their sort of a political objective. And within that context,

02:08.075 --> 02:11.605
then they described the French society. And as I mentioned before,

02:11.605 --> 02:15.965
they introduced the class structure for the first time in economics and defined

02:15.985 --> 02:20.685
the surplus. So they had a very, how should I say, political objective.

02:20.865 --> 02:21.765
But in doing that,

02:21.765 --> 02:25.445
they did something much more than than simply influence politics.

02:25.505 --> 02:27.365
And actually they didn't influence that much.

02:27.365 --> 02:31.725
They did a little bit through Cold Colbert, but not really that much. Yes,

02:31.865 --> 02:35.725
his picture was generally static. And that's actually what distinguishes him,

02:35.885 --> 02:39.085
I believe, from, from Smith and Ricardo and Marx,

02:39.305 --> 02:41.845
is that actually he doesn't think about,

02:42.225 --> 02:44.285
he doesn't ask himself the following question,

02:44.795 --> 02:47.445
what would be the evolution of the,

02:47.445 --> 02:50.165
of the class structure and the incomes that they receive?

02:50.165 --> 02:53.205
What would be revolutional wages, rent, profits?

02:53.585 --> 02:57.925
And the reason I think why he was not concerned with that is because of the

02:57.925 --> 02:59.450
objective that I mentioned before.

02:59.745 --> 03:04.525
His objective was let us sort of show the current situation of

03:04.525 --> 03:06.445
France and somewhat idealized,

03:06.965 --> 03:11.605
embellished situation that would exist if our recommendations were accepted.

03:11.905 --> 03:15.685
So he didn't think very much about dynamic terms. He was really thinking in,

03:16.465 --> 03:17.725
in static terms,

03:17.725 --> 03:22.005
like what would be the image of France if our policy were accepted?

03:22.445 --> 03:25.805
'cause he was very influenced by Scottish development.

03:25.805 --> 03:30.445
And he says that several times because with the unification and with the

03:30.595 --> 03:32.445
sort of closer integration with England,

03:32.445 --> 03:35.845
that was of course ahead of the other countries at that time,

03:36.245 --> 03:40.605
Scottish economy also improved. So he clearly, I think,

03:40.665 --> 03:44.165
was influenced by the, improvements,

03:44.525 --> 03:47.565
economic improvements that he witnessed during his own time.

03:48.145 --> 03:52.245
It is interesting that that structure, which basically is structure of what,

03:52.545 --> 03:54.005
we call today, capitalists,

03:54.005 --> 03:58.165
which in Smith's time he called masters or employers,

03:58.355 --> 04:02.085
then workers and landlords. Uh,

04:02.795 --> 04:04.925
that structure was, as we know,

04:05.065 --> 04:08.965
all influenced very much by the English or Scottish conditions.

04:09.665 --> 04:13.005
It was not the structure that was so common elsewhere,

04:13.005 --> 04:17.685
because very often you had either a feudal structure where you had forced labor

04:18.505 --> 04:21.045
in, in which case, in, in, in the case of Smith,

04:21.045 --> 04:25.645
there was no forced labor or you had, the small holders.

04:26.505 --> 04:28.565
And, so the, the the,

04:28.565 --> 04:33.565
the three-part structure that he introduced reflected the conditions of the

04:33.565 --> 04:34.185
time,

04:34.185 --> 04:38.645
but then basically got accepted even for the description of societies.

04:38.795 --> 04:41.725
They were, that really did not have exactly that structure.

04:41.785 --> 04:44.605
So it became really part of economics. Although, as I said,

04:44.605 --> 04:47.565
it reflected the conditions of the time of England and Scotland.

04:47.995 --> 04:52.525
They had indirectly a view because they were concerned with the

04:52.595 --> 04:53.085
incomes.

04:53.085 --> 04:56.605
And Smith certainly was concerned with the incomes on the three largest classes.

04:57.225 --> 05:01.245
Now, one very important point that he made is,

05:01.425 --> 05:06.405
his statement that wealth of a society is measured by how well

05:06.945 --> 05:11.605
the class that is the most numerous and whose contribution to the welfare of the

05:11.605 --> 05:14.245
society is the largest. How that class is doing.

05:14.745 --> 05:19.525
And that's a very crucial introduction because all the way until

05:19.535 --> 05:23.965
Smith, we are really thinking either when we speak of the success of a society,

05:24.305 --> 05:28.165
we either speak of the wealth of the top class,

05:28.345 --> 05:30.405
the king and the governors and so on,

05:31.185 --> 05:36.005
or we actually speak of the power military power of a

05:36.005 --> 05:38.285
nation. But for Smit for the first time,

05:38.435 --> 05:41.405
it's really welfare of the majority of people.

05:41.865 --> 05:46.485
And I think that introduction of the, how should I say? Well,

05:46.485 --> 05:50.325
for the majority of the people indirectly addresses the question of income

05:50.565 --> 05:53.885
distribution. Ricardo's model is the fact mathematical model,

05:53.895 --> 05:56.685
which is written in words. And the three

05:56.685 --> 06:01.165
Classes become so, strongly defined.

06:01.625 --> 06:04.965
Uh, while they, of course they were in Smith, but it was broader.

06:05.345 --> 06:07.085
In the case of Ricardo, practically,

06:07.145 --> 06:11.805
you have what maybe you can call economics called, economists called,

06:11.825 --> 06:16.605
later, the representative agents, the three classes, worker,

06:16.605 --> 06:18.805
worker, workers, capitalists,

06:19.065 --> 06:23.085
and landlords are practically sort of,

06:23.235 --> 06:28.165
caricatures in some sense because they are so narrowly defined. And then,

06:28.425 --> 06:33.405
but it becomes a very powerful machinery precisely for studying,

06:33.465 --> 06:37.965
for the study of income distribution because we have such sharply defined,

06:38.185 --> 06:42.525
social structure. If the corn laws continue and population increases,

06:42.905 --> 06:45.045
the cost of food would go, would go up,

06:45.475 --> 06:48.245
that would of course increase rents of landlords.

06:48.425 --> 06:53.245
But that would squeeze profits of capitalists because they would have to

06:53.265 --> 06:54.565
pay more workers.

06:54.795 --> 06:58.445
Workers would not be better off because they will still have the same quantity

06:58.505 --> 07:02.685
of food, but capitalists will be squeezed. If capitalists are squeezed,

07:02.775 --> 07:07.085
there is no money to invest and the economy comes to a standstill.

07:07.145 --> 07:09.125
So that's basically the structure.

07:09.665 --> 07:12.285
But I think what is important for our purpose,

07:12.425 --> 07:13.845
for the purpose of the book there,

07:14.265 --> 07:19.165
is that clearly income distribution is determining what happens to

07:19.165 --> 07:19.998
growth.

07:20.425 --> 07:25.165
If you have a bad income distribution where most of the income or money goes

07:25.165 --> 07:29.205
into the hands of landlords, you don't know, you do not have,

07:29.585 --> 07:34.525
and actually expanding economy. So that's the pa the main point in my opinion,

07:34.905 --> 07:39.285
why Ricardo for us is extremely important. He proposes to you,

07:39.465 --> 07:40.605
to me, to everybody,

07:40.605 --> 07:45.325
whoever was reading him that distribution improvement in the

07:45.565 --> 07:49.125
distribution, which means lower income for the landlords,

07:49.275 --> 07:53.525
goes together what with increased output. In other words,

07:53.935 --> 07:57.005
economists very often talk of a, so-called slow,

07:57.135 --> 08:01.925
where the efficiency and equity are basically trade-offs. In other words,

08:02.105 --> 08:06.725
you can have higher income, but only at the cost of towards distribution.

08:07.145 --> 08:10.605
But with Ricardo, it's the opposite. It's actually, you can have both,

08:10.985 --> 08:15.845
you can have better distribution, and you have have, you can have higher output.

08:15.905 --> 08:20.165
And I think in that sense, he's proposing to the reader really a windfall.

08:20.585 --> 08:23.205
If we improve the distribution, we would get all richer.

08:23.265 --> 08:27.805
The chapter is indeed the, I think, the longest, chapter.

08:28.385 --> 08:33.125
And, of course Marx is so rich in his writings, you know,

08:33.265 --> 08:36.805
to some extent, of course he builds totally on Ricardo. But on the other hand,

08:36.935 --> 08:37.768
there is a,

08:38.165 --> 08:42.765
a difference in partly because of course Ricardo unfortunately died

08:42.915 --> 08:45.245
very young. He was 51 when he died,

08:45.705 --> 08:50.525
but his writing is fairly limited in terms of the interest

08:50.785 --> 08:54.845
and the scope and even, pure number of pages.

08:55.345 --> 08:56.885
But on the other hand, with Mars,

08:56.885 --> 09:01.005
we have really a scope which goes from philosophy, history,

09:01.075 --> 09:03.645
obviously economics, and

09:03.645 --> 09:06.565
then even he had writings in mathematics,

09:06.745 --> 09:11.685
in geology and in many other things. So the scope is enormous. Um,

09:12.145 --> 09:13.885
and it was of course more,

09:13.915 --> 09:18.685
more difficult to write because although I was not concerned with other of his

09:18.965 --> 09:21.605
interests, I still had to mention them. And from time to time,

09:21.605 --> 09:25.725
they actually creep in, you know? Um, and his, the,

09:25.745 --> 09:29.965
the point of unity was really unity between the production and

09:30.565 --> 09:34.005
distribution in the following sense that he believed if you have a capitalist

09:34.005 --> 09:38.525
relations of production, you thereby define the,

09:38.525 --> 09:43.325
the distribution simply because you have people with different assets.

09:43.785 --> 09:48.445
In one case, it's labor power in the other case is, access to capital.

09:49.025 --> 09:53.165
And that determines the distribution. So he really could not see.

09:53.165 --> 09:55.005
What happened afterwards, I believe,

09:55.345 --> 09:59.885
is that the role of the state became really dominant and the role of the state

10:00.305 --> 10:04.565
was such to redistribute the incomes. And I think in, in March's time of,

10:04.565 --> 10:07.805
as you know, the role of the state was minimal, redistribution was minimal.

10:08.025 --> 10:12.885
And he believed once you have defined the, the, who owns what,

10:12.905 --> 10:16.125
in other words, the endowments, you really have the distribution.

10:16.145 --> 10:17.445
So the two things go together.

10:17.905 --> 10:22.525
The argument that he made about the unity between production distribution was in

10:22.845 --> 10:27.245
response to, to John Stewart Mill who said, and from our perspective,

10:27.245 --> 10:31.645
that seems a fairly, how should they say progressive view?

10:32.105 --> 10:36.845
He said, while production laws are determined by, actual,

10:36.985 --> 10:40.125
technological level of development,

10:40.265 --> 10:42.805
and they're really natural laws, in a sense,

10:43.785 --> 10:46.725
the distribution laws are social.

10:47.465 --> 10:51.645
So we can actually redesign distribution. And as I said before,

10:51.645 --> 10:54.565
mark didn't believe that because he believed once you have capitalism,

10:54.825 --> 10:57.725
you have also the distribution defined. Um,

10:58.185 --> 11:02.365
now his structure is of course very ardian,

11:02.785 --> 11:07.365
but in his writings where he's really writing as a

11:07.365 --> 11:12.005
historian, because he was discussing in the, the French,

11:12.405 --> 11:13.845
revolution, 1848,

11:13.905 --> 11:18.685
and then the Paris Commune and the revolution of 1871, his,

11:18.865 --> 11:23.125
view is much more nuanced. And why is it more nuanced?

11:23.125 --> 11:27.525
Going back to original question about adverse meat and tripartite structure,

11:27.955 --> 11:32.565
because the French, social structure at the time was more nuanced.

11:32.565 --> 11:36.205
You had small holders, you have lots of self-employed people,

11:36.265 --> 11:37.405
almost like I think,

11:37.665 --> 11:42.125
or 40 or 50% of people actually including land small

11:42.125 --> 11:44.405
landholders, were self-employed.

11:44.705 --> 11:49.085
So then you really do not have this very sharp structure. Like in Ricardo,

11:49.085 --> 11:52.205
when you have three classes there, you have actually many more classes.

11:52.865 --> 11:54.045
And that's why it becomes,

11:54.235 --> 11:59.125
becomes much more nuanced than only three large classes. Yes,

11:59.145 --> 12:03.845
the law of the Ential fall is, Marxist argument, which,

12:04.135 --> 12:08.485
which is really common even today when we think, think in,

12:08.585 --> 12:13.405
in slightly different terms of the rate of profit going down in, in,

12:13.505 --> 12:17.325
in Mar's view, you have an increased,

12:17.835 --> 12:20.285
capital intensity of production in,

12:20.745 --> 12:24.485
in his terminology is increasing the organic composition of capital.

12:24.865 --> 12:27.085
It was simply that there are more machines per worker,

12:27.305 --> 12:30.205
and I think that's kind of, if you want to call it today,

12:30.225 --> 12:35.165
you can have greater artificial intelligence per unit of physical labor

12:35.355 --> 12:39.285
that we put in. And he believed when this happens,

12:40.185 --> 12:44.365
the all as the only producer or surplus value is labor.

12:44.785 --> 12:48.845
You would have less surplus per the total unit,

12:49.105 --> 12:51.845
the total amount of capital that you have invested.

12:52.065 --> 12:55.605
So that's where the potential decline in the rate of profit comes.

12:56.145 --> 13:00.525
You have simply a lot of capital, lots of machines, let's call it like that.

13:00.745 --> 13:01.685
And on the other hand,

13:01.865 --> 13:06.845
you have fewer laborers for all that amount of capital.

13:07.385 --> 13:09.845
And since the only surplus value comes from labor,

13:10.345 --> 13:15.165
you will have lower ratio between the surplus value and that amount of

13:15.195 --> 13:19.925
machinery that you have in, in the, in the society or the economy.

13:20.135 --> 13:24.965
Capitalist as a class would have lower return on their assets,

13:26.475 --> 13:31.375
and yet some of them would have the advantage because Mark says

13:31.685 --> 13:36.455
also that the larger capital has always an advantage compared to a small

13:36.455 --> 13:40.135
capital. So what would happen in his one interpretation,

13:40.155 --> 13:43.495
and I say that's one there actually two, I mean,

13:43.495 --> 13:46.615
there are three address that I proposed, but in one interpretation,

13:47.125 --> 13:51.895
that would mean that there will be fewer of rich capitalists and

13:51.905 --> 13:55.775
there will be concentration of incomes and they will be higher inequality.

13:56.795 --> 13:59.255
In other words, let me just sort of make it clear.

13:59.755 --> 14:01.935
If the total mass of surplus value,

14:01.935 --> 14:04.775
which means the total mass of profit is

14:05.005 --> 14:09.375
less per unit of machinery, you would have an increasing,

14:09.685 --> 14:12.695
also increasing concentration among capitalists,

14:12.825 --> 14:17.575
which would make the whole inequality worse or actually greater inequality than

14:17.575 --> 14:20.095
before. So the law that potential,

14:20.125 --> 14:24.015
fall in the rate of profit had this double function in some sense,

14:24.315 --> 14:27.495
it shows that capitalism becomes kind of less,

14:27.605 --> 14:30.815
less productive or surplus value. And on the other hand,

14:31.005 --> 14:35.895
it's the concentration of the, of incomes. Pareto is of course a very important,

14:36.115 --> 14:40.735
for the study, maybe for two reasons. One that was so-called,

14:41.075 --> 14:45.455
Pareto's Law. And the, that law had also,

14:45.795 --> 14:47.975
the law basically says according to Pareto,

14:48.125 --> 14:50.735
that the income distribution cannot be changed. In other words,

14:51.025 --> 14:55.205
income distribution is more or less invariable regardless of the type of society

14:55.265 --> 14:58.965
you have. It was done actually the original idea,

14:59.065 --> 15:02.725
and it fitted very well with, Pareto's political views.

15:03.185 --> 15:07.965
It was done as a rebuttal of Marx, the facto, it, it, what it said,

15:08.105 --> 15:12.125
Pareto actually believed he was writing at the turn of the 20th century in,

15:12.505 --> 15:13.725
he was living in Switzerland,

15:13.725 --> 15:16.205
but he's an Italian economist and writing in French.

15:16.905 --> 15:21.245
And he saw socialism or socialist as the dominant force.

15:21.305 --> 15:25.365
And actually he believed that socialism will win, but he didn't like that fact.

15:25.945 --> 15:30.125
So then when he discovered that the data that he had,

15:30.125 --> 15:35.005
fiscal data showed more or less the same distribution in large,

15:35.245 --> 15:40.005
I mean not large number of cities or small,

15:40.385 --> 15:44.965
states in Germany, he actually argued, okay, I'm simplifying slightly,

15:45.265 --> 15:48.325
but he said, okay, maybe your socialist will come to power,

15:48.825 --> 15:53.205
but the only thing would be that you will have a different top different people

15:53.625 --> 15:57.325
at the top, but you will not change the laws of income distribution.

15:57.585 --> 16:00.725
So instead of capitalist being rich, it'll be bureaucrats will be rich.

16:01.105 --> 16:04.685
It validated that view that he,

16:06.045 --> 16:10.365
I believe probably implicitly held before that,

16:10.615 --> 16:15.125
there will be always an elite in a society. And he drawn Machiavelli on that.

16:15.385 --> 16:19.925
And he actually distinguished, following Machiavelli, two different elites,

16:19.925 --> 16:24.885
the elites that are so-called foxes that use persuasion and cunning

16:24.905 --> 16:26.325
to rule and alliance.

16:26.425 --> 16:29.845
That's the another elite which actually uses force to rule.

16:30.545 --> 16:31.885
But in both cases,

16:32.455 --> 16:35.805
there is an elite which rule societies,

16:36.385 --> 16:39.005
and consequently of course because is richer as well.

16:39.625 --> 16:42.365
And that means if you really believe that,

16:42.945 --> 16:45.645
and he argued that it actually was true throughout history,

16:45.955 --> 16:50.925
that essentially means that you cannot change the fundamental features

16:50.985 --> 16:54.965
of income distribution through social revolution because this is important

16:54.965 --> 16:59.005
because he now introduces something which was different.

16:59.665 --> 17:03.805
We are talking so far, as we were just doing it now,

17:03.955 --> 17:08.645
talking of social classes first, and we are talking about the elite now,

17:09.005 --> 17:12.645
OzNet also I think reflecting the American conditions where the class structure

17:13.185 --> 17:16.165
was less, sharp,

17:16.225 --> 17:20.645
or it actually believed that it was really on a, on a,

17:21.265 --> 17:25.925
on a wane actually disappearing. He, for him, the,

17:26.065 --> 17:27.285
the key markers,

17:27.625 --> 17:31.765
the key cleavages are between agriculture and manufacturing.

17:31.985 --> 17:34.605
So in both cases, these are the workers, but in one case,

17:34.605 --> 17:37.325
they are actually working as farmers. In the other case,

17:37.445 --> 17:39.685
they're working as workers in manufacturing,

17:40.345 --> 17:43.325
and a distinction between the rural areas and the urban areas.

17:43.705 --> 17:47.005
So we have really a different take on inequality.

17:47.135 --> 17:49.405
Inequality is no longer a matter of classes.

17:49.745 --> 17:54.165
It is a matter of bas basically whether you are working

17:54.665 --> 17:59.125
in a more productive, industries or you are actually staying,

17:59.545 --> 18:01.805
in, in less productive rural areas.

18:02.065 --> 18:07.045
So it's really the interplay between the earnings or productivity in

18:07.045 --> 18:09.085
one sector of the economy versus another.

18:09.345 --> 18:12.365
And you notice we are no longer talking of classes as such.

18:12.465 --> 18:16.485
We are really talking essentially of differences in productivity,

18:17.065 --> 18:19.005
and we have a possibility,

18:19.075 --> 18:23.845
easy possibility of a farmer to move into the town and to earn more.

18:24.265 --> 18:28.125
So you don't have, you know, you don't have in Ricardo, sorry,

18:28.235 --> 18:32.765
workers who become capitalists, it's kind of not considered,

18:32.785 --> 18:35.245
but with snes, the whole method,

18:35.385 --> 18:40.285
the whole development of inequality is the result of labor force moving from one

18:40.485 --> 18:41.318
activity to another.

18:41.565 --> 18:45.685
I open the chapter with the discussion of income distribution in socialist

18:46.245 --> 18:49.925
countries and in two types of socialism. One with,

18:49.925 --> 18:52.085
which of course I'm familiar from my own background,

18:52.085 --> 18:56.885
which was self-manage or actually market socialism of the Yugoslav type

18:57.465 --> 19:00.845
or, and the centrally planned socialism. Why that part I think,

19:00.845 --> 19:05.165
is important to come first is because the claim

19:05.705 --> 19:09.765
of class in those societies and the

19:09.905 --> 19:14.005
attractiveness of the, of not having a class,

19:14.135 --> 19:18.285
influenced the view of economists in capitalist countries as well.

19:18.825 --> 19:20.525
And I think the class structure,

19:21.225 --> 19:25.245
partly because also in ness ness telling of the story,

19:25.635 --> 19:29.725
that class structure disappears. It actually, the, the,

19:29.725 --> 19:33.525
the claim is if the Soviet Union doesn't have classes,

19:34.065 --> 19:36.125
we too in the United States don't have classes.

19:36.505 --> 19:40.645
We don't have it because everybody can is free to do whatever he or she wants,

19:41.265 --> 19:44.405
and the classes disappear, cleavages disappear,

19:44.825 --> 19:49.805
all individuals become basically interchangeable. There is no a any anymore,

19:50.185 --> 19:54.605
accent being put on ownership of different types of assets.

19:54.945 --> 19:59.525
We are all owners of something, you know, the assets become sort of technically,

19:59.985 --> 20:04.965
undistinguishable you have as A, B, and C, and I have as DEF.

20:05.465 --> 20:09.965
And that's why I think that we come with a representative agent,

20:09.965 --> 20:13.565
which become, which is really by definition homogeneous.

20:14.335 --> 20:19.195
We don't have heterogeneity. And once we don't have a heterogeneity,

20:19.195 --> 20:22.235
whether it is of gender or race of assets or whatever,

20:22.495 --> 20:26.435
we don't have income distribution anymore. We might generate a number,

20:26.615 --> 20:30.315
the genetic coefficient, this or that, but it doesn't have political salience.

20:30.735 --> 20:35.275
If I say that the genetic coefficient, whatever is such and such number,

20:35.905 --> 20:36.995
okay, that's important.

20:37.335 --> 20:42.035
But if I tell you that there is a systemic or systematic,

20:42.335 --> 20:45.595
racial discrimination, or if I tell you, well,

20:45.595 --> 20:50.085
there is inability of workers to acquire sufficient capital to become

20:50.085 --> 20:55.085
capitalists, I'm thereby creating a political story. It's an important,

20:55.155 --> 21:00.085
it's a salient story. It's much more powerful than simply saying, well,

21:00.165 --> 21:03.885
I have a genetic coefficient of 45. Uh, so the,

21:03.885 --> 21:08.245
the knowledge about the gene coefficient is necessary, but you have to have,

21:08.265 --> 21:12.445
as I call it, a narrative. You have to have a, a view of society,

21:12.775 --> 21:15.325
which is politically,

21:15.365 --> 21:20.085
transposable or actually politically salient to be, to be sold to,

21:20.145 --> 21:21.965
to people basically. This was,

21:22.085 --> 21:25.845
I think this is AU hugely important development. You know,

21:25.905 --> 21:29.045
I'm not by nature extremely, optimistic person,

21:29.185 --> 21:33.485
but when it comes to income distribution studies, I'm really optimistic for,

21:33.705 --> 21:38.165
for the future. The reason is the following first step, the, the, the,

21:38.165 --> 21:42.845
the fall of communist. And, the Soviet Union meant, as I was saying before,

21:43.265 --> 21:46.445
and it opened up, in the,

21:46.445 --> 21:50.045
we in the capitalist side, western side,

21:50.545 --> 21:55.525
opened up the issue of class structure again. Then it came as, the,

21:55.535 --> 21:59.125
which I think a very important event of the global financial crisis,

21:59.655 --> 22:04.285
which showed that inequality and sys systemic inequality

22:04.435 --> 22:07.805
increased. And a lot of that was covered up by ability,

22:07.805 --> 22:12.485
especially in the United States of easing, borrowing. And then of course,

22:12.485 --> 22:14.525
you had eventually to repay these loans.

22:14.525 --> 22:16.645
And then you realize your incomes have not really,

22:16.645 --> 22:19.485
your wage has not risen that far, that much.

22:20.145 --> 22:21.765
So th these events,

22:22.045 --> 22:25.285
I think brought to the attention of the public,

22:26.265 --> 22:28.125
the top 1%, of course,

22:28.325 --> 22:31.685
PKT contributed significantly to the knowledge of that,

22:31.745 --> 22:35.645
the empirical part as I mentioned. But he had also a story, a narrative,

22:36.025 --> 22:38.285
and that's why his book was very important.

22:38.905 --> 22:43.765
And then suddenly now you do have this conception or the idea that

22:43.765 --> 22:45.365
there is a certain elite,

22:45.755 --> 22:50.325
that meritocracy is also used as a way to justify the existence of this

22:50.415 --> 22:51.248
elite.

22:51.265 --> 22:56.165
And we really now have reintroduction of the salient features

22:56.225 --> 23:00.125
of cleavages in societies. And on top of that, you entered the, the,

23:00.325 --> 23:02.885
I mean you had gender and, race.

23:03.425 --> 23:07.725
So we really have an entirely political structure now that we didn't have

23:08.285 --> 23:12.245
actually before. It's not that didn't exist, it's just that we were not,

23:12.735 --> 23:16.245
aware of that structure as much as we are aware now.

00:00 - The authors that I mentioned and actually ourselves, look at in inequality, always in function or what we perceive at a given moment to be crucial for the determination, equality. So when we talk about inequality between within our own societies, I think we now take a different attitude than, for example, Canadian or Smit or Marx. It is just that the issues today are different.

00:26 - So in that sense, I think that the issues of racial discrimination, gender inequality, play much bigger role today than they played, in the 19th century. It's not that they didn't exist then, but they were overlooked because there were other issues. I think the Physiocrats had, in my opinion, two important contributions. the first one was the introduction of class structure in the analysis that was not present before. And they have a very detailed class structure and especially detailed and interesting class structure. At the top were, were three classes,

01:02 - clergy, aristocracy and government, share the surplus. So the second big contribution, which actually was something that marks highly sort of how should they say appreciated and pointed out, is the realization that the economic activity produces something which you can call surplus. In other words, for kne the, or the physiocrats, that surplus is necessary for the society to exist in the function. So there will be a class called it unproductive class like clergy, aristocracy and government that provide the service. But that pro service has to be paid from somebody and it's paid out of the

01:40 - service. The context of his time is pre-revolutionary France. The objective that physios had was to change French internal policies. That's why invented the terms less fair and less, which meant essentially less fair, like what it means, sorry, today. And CE passe was the abolition of the internal barriers and tariffs. So this was their sort of a political objective. And within that context, then they described the French society. And as I mentioned before, they introduced the class structure for the first time in economics and defined the surplus. So they had a very, how should I say, political objective. But in doing that,

02:21 - they did something much more than than simply influence politics. And actually they didn't influence that much. They did a little bit through Cold Colbert, but not really that much. Yes, his picture was generally static. And that's actually what distinguishes him, I believe, from, from Smith and Ricardo and Marx, is that actually he doesn't think about, he doesn't ask himself the following question, what would be the evolution of the, of the class structure and the incomes that they receive? What would be revolutional wages, rent, profits?

02:53 - And the reason I think why he was not concerned with that is because of the objective that I mentioned before. His objective was let us sort of show the current situation of France and somewhat idealized, embellished situation that would exist if our recommendations were accepted. So he didn't think very much about dynamic terms. He was really thinking in, in static terms, like what would be the image of France if our policy were accepted? 'cause he was very influenced by Scottish development. And he says that several times because with the unification and with the

03:30 - sort of closer integration with England, that was of course ahead of the other countries at that time, Scottish economy also improved. So he clearly, I think, was influenced by the, improvements, economic improvements that he witnessed during his own time. It is interesting that that structure, which basically is structure of what, we call today, capitalists, which in Smith's time he called masters or employers, then workers and landlords. that structure was, as we know,

04:05 - all influenced very much by the English or Scottish conditions. It was not the structure that was so common elsewhere, because very often you had either a feudal structure where you had forced labor in, in which case, in, in, in the case of Smith, there was no forced labor or you had, the small holders. And, so the, the the, the three-part structure that he introduced reflected the conditions of the time, but then basically got accepted even for the description of societies. They were, that really did not have exactly that structure.

04:41 - So it became really part of economics. Although, as I said, it reflected the conditions of the time of England and Scotland. They had indirectly a view because they were concerned with the incomes. And Smith certainly was concerned with the incomes on the three largest classes. Now, one very important point that he made is, his statement that wealth of a society is measured by how well the class that is the most numerous and whose contribution to the welfare of the society is the largest. How that class is doing. And that's a very crucial introduction because all the way until

05:19 - Smith, we are really thinking either when we speak of the success of a society, we either speak of the wealth of the top class, the king and the governors and so on, or we actually speak of the power military power of a nation. But for Smit for the first time, it's really welfare of the majority of people. And I think that introduction of the, how should I say? Well, for the majority of the people indirectly addresses the question of income distribution. Ricardo's model is the fact mathematical model, which is written in words. And the three

05:56 - Classes become so, strongly defined. while they, of course they were in Smith, but it was broader. In the case of Ricardo, practically, you have what maybe you can call economics called, economists called, later, the representative agents, the three classes, worker, worker, workers, capitalists, and landlords are practically sort of, caricatures in some sense because they are so narrowly defined. And then, but it becomes a very powerful machinery precisely for studying, for the study of income distribution because we have such sharply defined,

06:38 - social structure. If the corn laws continue and population increases, the cost of food would go, would go up, that would of course increase rents of landlords. But that would squeeze profits of capitalists because they would have to pay more workers. Workers would not be better off because they will still have the same quantity of food, but capitalists will be squeezed. If capitalists are squeezed, there is no money to invest and the economy comes to a standstill. So that's basically the structure. But I think what is important for our purpose,

07:12 - for the purpose of the book there, is that clearly income distribution is determining what happens to growth. If you have a bad income distribution where most of the income or money goes into the hands of landlords, you don't know, you do not have, and actually expanding economy. So that's the pa the main point in my opinion, why Ricardo for us is extremely important. He proposes to you, to me, to everybody, whoever was reading him that distribution improvement in the distribution, which means lower income for the landlords,

07:49 - goes together what with increased output. In other words, economists very often talk of a, so-called slow, where the efficiency and equity are basically trade-offs. In other words, you can have higher income, but only at the cost of towards distribution. But with Ricardo, it's the opposite. It's actually, you can have both, you can have better distribution, and you have have, you can have higher output. And I think in that sense, he's proposing to the reader really a windfall. If we improve the distribution, we would get all richer. The chapter is indeed the, I think, the longest, chapter. And, of course Marx is so rich in his writings, you know,

08:33 - to some extent, of course he builds totally on Ricardo. But on the other hand, there is a, a difference in partly because of course Ricardo unfortunately died very young. He was 51 when he died, but his writing is fairly limited in terms of the interest and the scope and even, pure number of pages. But on the other hand, with Mars, we have really a scope which goes from philosophy, history, obviously economics, and then even he had writings in mathematics,

09:06 - in geology and in many other things. So the scope is enormous. and it was of course more, more difficult to write because although I was not concerned with other of his interests, I still had to mention them. And from time to time, they actually creep in, you know? and his, the, the point of unity was really unity between the production and distribution in the following sense that he believed if you have a capitalist relations of production, you thereby define the, the distribution simply because you have people with different assets. In one case, it's labor power in the other case is, access to capital.

09:49 - And that determines the distribution. So he really could not see. What happened afterwards, I believe, is that the role of the state became really dominant and the role of the state was such to redistribute the incomes. And I think in, in March's time of, as you know, the role of the state was minimal, redistribution was minimal. And he believed once you have defined the, the, who owns what, in other words, the endowments, you really have the distribution. So the two things go together. The argument that he made about the unity between production distribution was in response to, to John Stewart Mill who said, and from our perspective,

10:27 - that seems a fairly, how should they say progressive view? He said, while production laws are determined by, actual, technological level of development, and they're really natural laws, in a sense, the distribution laws are social. So we can actually redesign distribution. And as I said before, mark didn't believe that because he believed once you have capitalism, you have also the distribution defined. now his structure is of course very ardian, but in his writings where he's really writing as a

11:07 - historian, because he was discussing in the, the French, revolution, 1848, and then the Paris Commune and the revolution of 1871, his, view is much more nuanced. And why is it more nuanced? Going back to original question about adverse meat and tripartite structure, because the French, social structure at the time was more nuanced. You had small holders, you have lots of self-employed people, almost like I think, or 40 or 50% of people actually including land small landholders, were self-employed.

11:44 - So then you really do not have this very sharp structure. Like in Ricardo, when you have three classes there, you have actually many more classes. And that's why it becomes, becomes much more nuanced than only three large classes. Yes, the law of the Ential fall is, Marxist argument, which, which is really common even today when we think, think in, in slightly different terms of the rate of profit going down in, in, in Mar's view, you have an increased, capital intensity of production in, in his terminology is increasing the organic composition of capital.

12:24 - It was simply that there are more machines per worker, and I think that's kind of, if you want to call it today, you can have greater artificial intelligence per unit of physical labor that we put in. And he believed when this happens, the all as the only producer or surplus value is labor. You would have less surplus per the total unit, the total amount of capital that you have invested. So that's where the potential decline in the rate of profit comes. You have simply a lot of capital, lots of machines, let's call it like that. And on the other hand,

13:01 - you have fewer laborers for all that amount of capital. And since the only surplus value comes from labor, you will have lower ratio between the surplus value and that amount of machinery that you have in, in the, in the society or the economy. Capitalist as a class would have lower return on their assets, and yet some of them would have the advantage because Mark says also that the larger capital has always an advantage compared to a small capital. So what would happen in his one interpretation, and I say that's one there actually two, I mean, there are three address that I proposed, but in one interpretation,

13:47 - that would mean that there will be fewer of rich capitalists and there will be concentration of incomes and they will be higher inequality. In other words, let me just sort of make it clear. If the total mass of surplus value, which means the total mass of profit is less per unit of machinery, you would have an increasing, also increasing concentration among capitalists, which would make the whole inequality worse or actually greater inequality than before. So the law that potential, fall in the rate of profit had this double function in some sense,

14:24 - it shows that capitalism becomes kind of less, less productive or surplus value. And on the other hand, it's the concentration of the, of incomes. Pareto is of course a very important, for the study, maybe for two reasons. One that was so-called, Pareto's Law. And the, that law had also, the law basically says according to Pareto, that the income distribution cannot be changed. In other words, income distribution is more or less invariable regardless of the type of society you have. It was done actually the original idea, and it fitted very well with, Pareto's political views.

15:03 - It was done as a rebuttal of Marx, the facto, it, it, what it said, Pareto actually believed he was writing at the turn of the 20th century in, he was living in Switzerland, but he's an Italian economist and writing in French. And he saw socialism or socialist as the dominant force. And actually he believed that socialism will win, but he didn't like that fact. So then when he discovered that the data that he had, fiscal data showed more or less the same distribution in large, I mean not large number of cities or small, states in Germany, he actually argued, okay, I'm simplifying slightly,

15:45 - but he said, okay, maybe your socialist will come to power, but the only thing would be that you will have a different top different people at the top, but you will not change the laws of income distribution. So instead of capitalist being rich, it'll be bureaucrats will be rich. It validated that view that he, I believe probably implicitly held before that, there will be always an elite in a society. And he drawn Machiavelli on that. And he actually distinguished, following Machiavelli, two different elites, the elites that are so-called foxes that use persuasion and cunning to rule and alliance.

16:26 - That's the another elite which actually uses force to rule. But in both cases, there is an elite which rule societies, and consequently of course because is richer as well. And that means if you really believe that, and he argued that it actually was true throughout history, that essentially means that you cannot change the fundamental features of income distribution through social revolution because this is important because he now introduces something which was different. We are talking so far, as we were just doing it now,

17:03 - talking of social classes first, and we are talking about the elite now, OzNet also I think reflecting the American conditions where the class structure was less, sharp, or it actually believed that it was really on a, on a, on a wane actually disappearing. He, for him, the, the key markers, the key cleavages are between agriculture and manufacturing. So in both cases, these are the workers, but in one case, they are actually working as farmers. In the other case, they're working as workers in manufacturing,

17:40 - and a distinction between the rural areas and the urban areas. So we have really a different take on inequality. Inequality is no longer a matter of classes. It is a matter of bas basically whether you are working in a more productive, industries or you are actually staying, in, in less productive rural areas. So it's really the interplay between the earnings or productivity in one sector of the economy versus another. And you notice we are no longer talking of classes as such. We are really talking essentially of differences in productivity,

18:17 - and we have a possibility, easy possibility of a farmer to move into the town and to earn more. So you don't have, you know, you don't have in Ricardo, sorry, workers who become capitalists, it's kind of not considered, but with snes, the whole method, the whole development of inequality is the result of labor force moving from one activity to another. I open the chapter with the discussion of income distribution in socialist countries and in two types of socialism. One with, which of course I'm familiar from my own background,

18:52 - which was self-manage or actually market socialism of the Yugoslav type or, and the centrally planned socialism. Why that part I think, is important to come first is because the claim of class in those societies and the attractiveness of the, of not having a class, influenced the view of economists in capitalist countries as well. And I think the class structure, partly because also in ness ness telling of the story, that class structure disappears. It actually, the, the, the claim is if the Soviet Union doesn't have classes,

19:34 - we too in the United States don't have classes. We don't have it because everybody can is free to do whatever he or she wants, and the classes disappear, cleavages disappear, all individuals become basically interchangeable. There is no a any anymore, accent being put on ownership of different types of assets. We are all owners of something, you know, the assets become sort of technically, undistinguishable you have as A, B, and C, and I have as DEF. And that's why I think that we come with a representative agent, which become, which is really by definition homogeneous. We don't have heterogeneity. And once we don't have a heterogeneity,

20:19 - whether it is of gender or race of assets or whatever, we don't have income distribution anymore. We might generate a number, the genetic coefficient, this or that, but it doesn't have political salience. If I say that the genetic coefficient, whatever is such and such number, okay, that's important. But if I tell you that there is a systemic or systematic, racial discrimination, or if I tell you, well, there is inability of workers to acquire sufficient capital to become capitalists, I'm thereby creating a political story. It's an important, it's a salient story. It's much more powerful than simply saying, well,

21:00 - I have a genetic coefficient of 45. so the, the knowledge about the gene coefficient is necessary, but you have to have, as I call it, a narrative. You have to have a, a view of society, which is politically, transposable or actually politically salient to be, to be sold to, to people basically. This was, I think this is AU hugely important development. You know, I'm not by nature extremely, optimistic person, but when it comes to income distribution studies, I'm really optimistic for, for the future. The reason is the following first step, the, the, the,

21:38 - the fall of communist. And, the Soviet Union meant, as I was saying before, and it opened up, in the, we in the capitalist side, western side, opened up the issue of class structure again. Then it came as, the, which I think a very important event of the global financial crisis, which showed that inequality and sys systemic inequality increased. And a lot of that was covered up by ability, especially in the United States of easing, borrowing. And then of course, you had eventually to repay these loans. And then you realize your incomes have not really,

22:16 - your wage has not risen that far, that much. So th these events, I think brought to the attention of the public, the top 1%, of course, PKT contributed significantly to the knowledge of that, the empirical part as I mentioned. But he had also a story, a narrative, and that's why his book was very important. And then suddenly now you do have this conception or the idea that there is a certain elite, that meritocracy is also used as a way to justify the existence of this

22:50 - elite. And we really now have reintroduction of the salient features of cleavages in societies. And on top of that, you entered the, the, I mean you had gender and, race. So we really have an entirely political structure now that we didn't have actually before. It's not that didn't exist, it's just that we were not, aware of that structure as much as we are aware now.

Faculti AI can make mistakes