He is one of the best known living economists with the fight against inequality. Thomas piketty is here to discuss his eyeopening and audacious new book, capital and ideology. He is joined by stephanie former chief economics and professor of economics and Public Policy at Stony Brook University this is available june 9 for preorder. Just a few housekeeping things before we get started, what to hear from you. Just as you would in an in person event, thomas will answer your questions after the talk. How does that work . Look at the bottom of your screen youll see a book that says active question. Please use this space to ask your question about capital and ideology. You will be joined on screen will be reading from your questions and asking some of her own. And a reminder, unlike our in person events, the author hosts and audience there was cannot see you through the screen. So now please join me in welcoming thomas piketty. So hello, hello to all. That means you say i would much prefer to be there in person with politics and prose, with. [inaudible] going to sit a few words with my new book questions let me just say how strange it is to talk about the book in this context. Let me tell you this is one of the events. [inaudible] inequality between the people. [inaudible] very small globe. [inaudible] continued in the streets of paris gets there to keep working in their jobs. In poor countries of course and many cases pushing out Migrant Workers along construction sites in some cases were pushed out and sometimes a violent manner and a massive statement of people going back to the countryside. Not different from this crises the systems effectiveness. [inaudible] issuing in poor countries something nobody knows is his un precedented. [inaudible] historical experience with especially 1919 people around the world have died because of the policies. What we know from this experience it was much much larger in the poor countries in europe during the spanish flu of 1918 and 1919. Which of course and western europe india three themselves. [inaudible] demonstrating a huge inequality, today but we have during this crises to do everything we can to keep the casualties as low as possible with international and national, of course to require and transform parts of our system leave sheet to the book for the crises, the financial crises like this one contribute to the government ideology and use of the organize something i have learned sometimes crisis are necessary for change there never guaranteed forms of position and the trajectory after the crisis. So let me get to the question time in a few minutes. Let me step back a little bit and try to describe. [inaudible] just for information i should apologize the fact that my english sounds so much like france jim french im sorry i am so bad it english translation. Im also sorry for the fact book that i wanted to write a book of freedom this when his gotten out of control. The same time i should express this is not a technical book at all it can be read by anyone whos interested does not require a technical knowledge. I think its a bit of book in the 21st century to the first reason is i take a much more global my previous book. [inaudible] also be considered human condition with this book i talk much more about countries outside like india china also communication for the way i have come to see and to put it in a nutshell, so weight to look into structure with society ive come to the Conclusion Society and id elliptical and illogical what i mean by this we should look at Different Countries, we see very fast change in the way we structure equality between class. There are times and what strikes me is that happens after what typically in society we would turn to equality and describe the natural order try to change the world to crash i also describe in my book fast changes, sometimes it takes after a big crash in the world or revolution, sometimes also a look at a peaceful manner one example is in the case because sometimes you look and act country like france and sweden in many ways its an excuse to say you cannot be because of the structure when you look at its a very long time sweden was a different country and the 20th it was just one century gobetween between 1865 sweden in one of the most important in the whole of europe in the 19th century around the worl worlds a bit of sweden in which they decided within unit add between one and 100 votes depending on the size of the property and tax you pay. He was it dictator there is an aristocrat so someone told me you mentioned you were going to be one of them said look, thats not the fact except that was from a position and the workers in sweden it would be too far and they took us in the state social democrats 1932 stayed for almost 16 years with the induction, and then there is freedom of the objects it is different different tort trajectory and the world Financial Market that we cannot stop what i want to draw on from this experience theres no picture of difference in sweden there is a picture of equality. What mattered in the end even with world war i and world war ii. With this position takes a very big crisis to shift the balance of power it is a message they tried to push and move its just a balance of power. As with the balance of power its a big mistake to achieve we know what to do we know how to change the problem and only have problems Going Forward lets say there are no people. I think we have how we organize in suggest suspense. Reporter organize how we reorganize as people we have a constraint we cannot ignore the border we get except the challenges just like the challenges that have been in the past. Theres a nature of the change. As the focus of the book comes to justify the threat this extends inequality. Its more complex just to decide to do it. There is a need to say we need to teach the strategies and can bring more innovation i want to show this extends with hypocrisy sometimes you go too far into justify inequality and so they say. Always contain at least some equality and truth even today i can come to you with Energy Experience of humanity and definition. We want to be able to think about the system as transformation of an ideologica ideological. Socially there and describe it is my book. I am aware that some people in this country in the United States with the 21st century that is okay with me. Im not going to tell people what they should use. They describe it meant the end of my book is basically to try to teach what is the 21st century a confident approach to the transformation of taxation one is to go through the legal system so germany, sweden, rights. That is been since the 1950s. Could actually extend that to every country and companies and we could also imagine with the maximum fraction of rights we need everybody to pick up the economy and one of the lessons from those in general is that this actually allows it to involve workers in the company and the decisions to count down. With the competition package with the strategies and the people involved with the middle income and sort of focusing and that is good. But go on with things like that and continue that this is systemic and is better and thereve been some discussion lately emily turn of the centuries job could become world mundane. We set own no we dont have workers involved in the demonstrations in the street. We dont to show them for members hear people have gone to shelters in francis see what guidance they seem to be needed. This is been to change the number from one transforms. The order dimension which is a way to lead to the transition in the finance, the system of social security, that is in addition to whats important. Theres been a lot of hypocrisy in describing the book with the rise with the Democrat Party in europe when contact and number i have read in this is where more equipped we are to understand with the taxation and some justice. Also with distribution of wealth in the United States and britain with the distribution better than years ago. We are giving way for Better Outcomes that we have been waiting for for some time now. We have a system of their equitable and sustainable in the middle. We see action and we want to work it in effect could very strongly affect on capitalism and treat you the same way for those of the opposition unit run into a deep problem of social injustice not just in france but other National Countries that try to keep up with this. Is it new kind of labor to deliver the change. So let me stop there so we have time for questions. Its in the book, it is a process about justice and might be going in the right direction. There is literature of inequality and very successful in the process to addition centuries and has been interrupted since 1918 and 1919 i think maybe start with more people who reopen discussion to a change in the system and continue this evolution. That is terrific. I love talking about ideology because ideology is something that is created, really from language, right . And we shape public opinion. That is what becomes the dominant ideology. He mentioned ronald reagan, aware that you did not use in your talk, at least if you did it escaped me, is the word neal liberal or neoliberalism. I wonder whether in your view if neoliberalism is the dominant political ideology today . And if it is, would you talk about a little bit and doesnt really in some sense with margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, the idea that as reagan said the government is not the solution to your problem, the government is your problem. Is that sort of where we are today the fact the legacy and that dominance ideology . to be acceptable. In the management function is ideal and led to very extreme composition to the owners of slaves often in position to slave because people abwe see it taking the form of National Resources which we know from standings of armor of product of public knowledge. Like public investment. Its not the choice thats why in my book i describe the popular idea which i agree is a bit complicated and may be a way to ab may be at the end we can see the big risk that as we know very different meaning in Different Countries and to refer to the people who are quite different from people managed to complete that with some people get ab these forms are very in many case i fully agree with you in one of the different industries. It was basically a huge decline in tax prep acidity. Something that is never been completely the democrats until now. To reconsider this is what in a way was the problem which was federal income tax was created in the state has entities too but the production was unique quality in universities and i think it was. We still of course dont know what is going to it was very important but may be awhat i show in my book is russia and china was those conscious days that vito and the way thats best deny of abin russia the teaching in russia you have no property you contacts at all commuters income tax, and the u. S. May be there are dreams about it but you cannot say you have to pretend russia was completely flat. So everything there is to privatize the ability of people who are then they can transmit and misses a term in the country that used to be used. This kind of big idea amazing example of a country in 2007 the tax the country ruled by the republic of china. And today you issue some people s so if you go catch in taiwan and capitalize japan japan it was a way to keep the fact that russia and china today have a complete honor with nero no attempt to register a big ideal it was more important. But in many parts of the world in the favor of community. Now its just to yield that to say that in 2020 its time to reconsider weve gone too far into we think at the time of economists think about inequality we hear this term about the jeannie coexisted. It is not a twoyear term familiar to people the average person Walking Around but would you talk a little bit about how much inequality . We watch this measure of inequality and i mentioned we call it the jeannie coeducation. Do you have a sense of where you would like to see the gini coefficient move . I know directionally but how far . James talks about inequality it says and not interested in trying to produce a perfectly legality Aryan Society but at the time king says the degree of income and wealth inequality we have today now hes writing of course during the Great Depression is too extreme. So we agreed we have too much income and wealth inequality. How much is too little . In other words, i want to get a sense from you how much she would like to drive inequality down before doing the kinds of things people warned about stifling innovation and that sort of thing. How much inequality is optimal . I would not put ablet me try to answer this, first, i tried to emphasize the concrete group third person in society top patterns and i try to be at school we truly explicit about how many numbers people can realize what it means because when it tries to synthesize anything that opinions from talking to one number and people tend to dont fully understand where its coming from. To give you a quick thinking about the construction of income is what you earn and worth is what you owe. It can be real estate, it can be stock market, made up of some people might get rent in the debt some people have a lot of options. The distribution of what in the United States, medicare has no place, theres two different of total worth. The top 10 so much time it came in europe it was more than that top 10 person owed up to 90 of the rights. So over the course of the 20th century there been many people think the top 10 as 90 person to 50 to 70 people. Which is a decline. At the same time, the decline was especially from may be the bottom system with fewer people in europe that wouldve been 12 and with that was a little bit mid much. So what is that mean . Ive read your words today the u. S. In europe and they said 200 if you prepare to be 400. Maybe 150 and but the median is less then you know people take the average so at the bottom if you have at least two people, what is it mean . It means that on average your wife is one percent of average wealth. It means you have a few months in advance. Maybe youre trying to bury in this stage you have a big knot gauge some of you have an adopt meant this is what a lot of it looks like. In the system of what i describe, lets say theres a share that goes to the bottom 60 person, at least be 20 or 25 . It would make it basically people would have 100 dollars or they would say 100 to 200. Why is this so important . People may say it doesnt matter. But in fact it makes a huge difference because when you have debt and basically in a situation like today like you love to go to work because you need to eat. When you have no worth at all. You were to accept anything. Any wage. Because you have to pay your bills. So you are in a position the world in general. Its more than just two percent or 20 . What matters if you know for sufficiently sufficiently that you can be a little bit picky. You dont need to accept everything. Then you can take no risk. Its actually make a big difference. I think its more important in the structure of society. Knowing about the right ab its not just its transforming the evaluation. When getting to a better balance between the rights of workers and the rights of product and consumers. I think we have to do more and more in this direction. I think we hear often people talk about exactly what are the drivers that produce such extreme levels of wealth inequality and say how is it that the top 1 10 of one percent all know almost as much wealth as the bottom line percent . How did they arrive at that place . Sometimes you hear people say we need to tax the people at the top and then we can spend to lift the incomes and increase prosperity for those in the middle and down at the bottom but other times you hear people say, instead of chasing matt wealth on the backend it could be accumulated by the people at the top we need to start thinking more seriously about redistribution so its not just about robin hood and redistribute the policies but predistribution and that is what you were just getting at when you talked about property rights, different worker arrangements, ownership arrangements you mentioned earlier intellectual property. I wonder if you might say a little bit about redistributive policies and the ways in which that could help will help the degree of income and wealth inequality. As you just said, an important trait is that has to contribute with a lot of Property Taxation of wealth and income and sometimes its the turn of predistribution was used not by everybody but some people as a way to say, we dont need taxation this in fact you need both at the same time. At one point i gave if you want know the system you need to have property tax on wealth potential. So to give you the number of the proposal and making it be that everyone would have 100 or 120 euros which would be 150 dollars so people would have an zero would receive that much and in order to pay for that, people would be there and receive 1 Million Dollars or euro would receive 600, which would still be aband it to your point opinion i think it could go further than that. Its not radical its just try to be consistent but if she wants to go in that direction. Just moving in the direction trying to address extreme the b,20 and 25 you need the sense of taxation of wealth and its the same for one way to come site for the very extreme its also to joe tax rate in the level of executing the composition of this was between 1913 and 1917 and thats never sufficient, we also need to act at the same time on the liberal system we dont want to choose between these rights we want to move in the same direction and i think predistribution more equal distribution the main instrument is of course communication. If you look in access to education and the extremists, youre trying to deliver access to an idea of education. I think its important to set targets. Its not enough to say, okay we have opportunity blah blah blah. We need to have very atargets, its the same court of justice to be simpleminded. Taxes him many years ago. The tax rates dont work perfectly well but at least the democrats can have a conversation about whats right and thats whats mixing with the advocate education overseas is your extremely in court and at the same time prosper two very silent to set as a target in a matter of a particular organization. There are a lot of ideologies, economic and political ideologies, is there one that you consider the most pernicious . Todays system is a notion of what very special today as we predetermine the winner of the system and of course thats putting a lot of pressure on the users in addition maybe you dont have enough marriage or didnt put enough structure. This kind of ideology you see it in effect today its particularly important especially with the right of rise of communication in general. There is one book he wrote in 1968 and that the time he wrote it as like a Science Fiction story attracted suspend the future. Actually trying to warm the stretch from the labour party if you more equal institution. We are going to end up in so much to be valiance in the ideology it will be more or less described as abetc. So to complete destruction in 1958 this tradition in the labour party was a Technicians Party which it was it populist party which would end up incomplete a ain 2020 whereas the social largest germans ends up being killed in the middle of the riot in the city so the rise of the democracy i think i think its quite deep because in 1958 not exactly what but to some extent it has become even more than the conservative party the labour party and conservative lines of Democratic Party and the us. I think each rise of Higher Education we feel inferior to that at times to which we have an equal opportunity. Of course we are all in the group and the lack of its a verb used as pure ideal huge privileges which cannot be just as effective. I think if we dont we will not be able to have a chance to complete the dissemination and this is to student debt, to customer debt in general, ab so very important. I love that that was your answer because i anticipated that was going to be your answer. It is so pernicious the idea that, its so complicated for people to tell, why did someone become so extraordinarily wealthy . How did that happen . Because you cant see, for everybody to see the patent laws and protections in intellectual property, trade laws, tax laws, labor, all the things that a law will come if you like, the very rich to in a sense take their fair share over a period of decades. People come along like you and you say, we ought to think about wealth tax or we ought to think about more aggressive taxation people say wait a minute, thats punishing success. And this is what you just said that the perception is that people who have done extraordinarily well have done so because they worked really hard to get where they are. Theyve taken advantage of the opportunities that were available but anybody couldve done that, right . So my question to you is, this is a question that came up and was opposed to some of the president ial candidates in the Democratic Party and it gets people in trouble. But im going to pose it to you and feel free to dance around it. Should billionaires exist . In the ideal tax system i described, in effect, billionaires will run abwill not remain billionaires you could remain a billionaire for couple years you see someone with it does not last because the extent of being a billionaire would be 90 when you say billionaire tax in effect look to labors of law like 10 million or 5 million or 20 million, and so to summarize, what i want is not a society which instead of a society where the population close to zero and some people dozens of billions, i would like a society where everybody can have instant people can have true median. Some people would go to 2000 million that would not last. So this is a lot of inequality. Maybe not a tax on ab sometimes those things we live in societies where we have a Life Expectancy were not moving away from significant debt to all these contributing to the finances of this country in the world. But let me be clear, some of these people not asking for complete equality but with creation and proper relation its always social bill gates did not learn the computer by a aeverybody realize that everybody realize in the with the knowledge that has taken place that Natural Resources which has been very careful how we lose that use them. It comes from a connective process and the notion that the economists. It makes no sense. Private property has been invented by society and to the extent its useful. I think private property can be used as long as its regulated so the idea that there is an actual hold to property and as many as us have made huge mistakes in history. Except in the productivity growth statistic to the economy between 1990 in 2020 a world country. In the distance you can manage in 1990. Also between 1930 and 1950 which specially 1962 is not in session. On the top of the income tax so reduce innovation and growth, of all americans and democracy. That could be right, but something of late there was a 1992 some point we have to see the production of growth the end of energy but i dont think thats the issue think the main richard and trents admission instant middle of the century we were at a time in new york and japan the u. S. Was everywhere in the world at skimming occasions in 1918 according to which the impression the idea of the gna in which i think this is something there is a taxed its quite apparent this is not the end. Items one bring up one question jointly to stop redoing to go to one question from online . Civic i am waiting to hear from her. But we can hear you. I cant hear you. You are muted she cant speak simon asking very quickly its a question for sean and she asks is a student of economics to understand your Research Better what would you recommend they take a look at thats publicly available contact and what other researchers they beat paying attention to if they are interested in any quality. Two read my book the first two chief in history eight times in three hours with class i also do and in my book you can access it, referencing to a work by a social scientists. [inaudible] we work on many topics that ive not work directly. Understand get done and i love to read. Host i dont of heidis amish is having difficulties are coming back in . I think she was probably to show up to thank you, and to say we are out of time. She doesnt jump back on than i will assume maybe shes having difficulty. I will thank you, and i will say to everyone, you are in this chat which means you have already purchased the book. I enjoyed this conversation i am looking forward to see the next book i think we come to the solutions of what we see i think it is going to be very good with the discussion. Thank you. Thank you you continue to do incredible work. It was very, very nice to join you for this, i hope youll find ourselves traveling again one day maybe we will be in person again. Okay thank you. Thank you so much. And tonight we feature books about race in america with authors bestselling author Tara Westover has earned production of formal education 17 and being raised by survivalist parents. Former u. S. Surgeon general discusses why Human Connection is important. And journalist Lauren Sanders reports on homelessness across america. The full schedule for the weekend is available on your program guide. Politics and prose bookstore in washington d. C. , author robert plumb looked at how harriet tubman, Harriet Beecher stowe comment other women had an impact on the civil war. In this portion of the program, he talks about poet julia warren howe author of the battle hymn of the republic. In the early 1860s the word just begun. She came to washington with her husband, doctor Samuel Gridley howe. He was a piece of work himself and not shy about talking about his ability to do great things. She came, she resumed the backseat will he was off doing things in washington with the Sanitary Commission which was sort of a early version of the red cross. She went in a wagon with some friends across the potomac, and watched the Union Soldiers parade and do their military kinds of things. On the way back, they were surrounded by Union Soldiers, she was struck by two things bridwell was the fact they were very young. Some not match older than her own children. Secondly they started singing what they started singing was john browns body. Was a very round ching martin june 1 of the persons accompanied her was the minister you know here you could do better job than that that is denigrating to john brown. Can she process that in that night when she went back to the hotel she woke up in the middle of the night grab some paper and started writing. Writing and writing a poem on scraps of paper. The next morning when she got up shed made a few tweaks to it, but basically it was what it was going to be, the battle hymn of the republic. She had it published a little bit later the first of the next year, and harpers weekly. It took off. Soldiers were singing as they marched, civilians were moved by its lyrics, and its finally bringing to the forefront what the union because was really about. The cause of the beginning was bringing the union back together that may be a fine unifying argument, but hardly raises peoples spirits. When she talked about dying to set men free, suddenly the whole purpose of the war took on a new tone. That coupled with the emancipation proclamation set the union off on a new track. To view the rest of the talk visit our website booktv. Org, type his name or the title of his book, the better angels into the search box at the top of the page. Hello and a very warm Welcome National book festival presents brought to by the library of congress my name is marie arana i am an author and also the literary director of the library of congress. Much of my own writing has been about the history of the people of latin america and the purpose of this conversation is to share a little bit of that history and talk about how it