Pour la liberté économique et la concurrence fiscale

Faire un don

Menu


Pour la liberté économique et la concurrence fiscale


fr.irefeurope.org

Accueil > Publications > Nos ouvrages > Anti-Piketty

Anti-Piketty

Vive le Capital au XXIe siècle !

lundi 15 juin 2015

Nouvel ouvrage sous la direction de : Jean-Philippe Delsol, Nicolas Lecaussin et Emmanuel Martin.

Ce livre basé sur des arguments factuels et chiffrés, mais écrit dans un style tout public, est en quelque sorte le livre noir de la grande mystification économique du XXIe siècle.

Vous pouvez acheter cet ouvrage dès maintenant en le commandant auprès de votre libraire, auprès de la maison d’édition ou bien :
sur : Amazon ou la FNAC.

https://fr.irefeurope.org/Publications/Nos-ouvrages/Anti-Piketty-3372

Messages

  • Bonjour,
    A la seule idée de taxer les transactions mondiales, on comprends qu'on a de nouveau affaire à quelqu'un qui entend des voix. Et le fait que ce livre est un best-seller explique la doxa économique qui fait augmenter les déficits et dettes des pays.

  • Considering the world-wide impact of the book 'Capital in
    the 21st Century', by French economist Thomas Piketty,
    and its meaning for social priorities and goals, I am pleased
    to send you my attached evaluation of this book. I hope
    this will inspire your reflections about the moments we are
    going through. Kind regards,
    Ronaldo Campos Carneiro – June 2014
    Brasília - DF - Brasil
    About Piketty’s Book on Capital -
    The Answer of a convinced Liberal
    After fifteen years of research (1998-2013) aimed at
    understanding the historical dynamics of income and wealth
    in around 20 countries, mainly in the last 200 years,
    analysing remarkable facts about humanity such as the
    industrial revolution, world conflicts and economic crises,
    using and harmonizing data broadly accepted by credible
    institutions like the World Bank, the UN and the IMF, this
    French Professor at the Paris School of Economics, Thomas
    Piketty, aged 43, came to the conclusion that :
    Capitalism, or what is left of it, just as it is now put
    in practice or crony capitalism is heavily
    concentrating income and wealth, in a process where
    the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Estimates
    for the XXI century are alarming and define human
    coexistence as unfeasible under the rules prevailing
    nowadays.
    The current market competition is like an athletic
    race in which some are well fed and have access to
    health assistance and education, whereas crowds of
    excluded are left far behind : the minimally decent
    atitude is to place them on the same starting line or to
    equal their opportunities at the beginning of the race.
    “The 85 richest people in the world, who could fit into a
    single London double-decker, control as much wealth as
    the poorest half of the global population– that is 3.5 billion
    people”.
    “Strong inequality is corrosive of growth ; it is corrosive for
    society. I believe that economists and politicians
    ignored inequality for too long.” (Christine Lagarde,
    Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund)
    I personally think that these conclusions are irrefutable. No
    scholar will, after Piketty’s research, ignore the enormous
    social exclusion generated by capitalism, or the urgent
    need of actions to revert this dramatic situation. Inequality
    is complicating the market economy. One must never
    forget that the economy depends on supply and demand –
    it is useless to have supply facing a reduction in demand, or
    vice-versa. No one, but a liberal dreamer, can imagine that
    the economy will operate with supply only ! Economics is a
    science where agents are regulated by the inexorable
    law of supply and demand. Politics is an art where
    the human will prevails. This is the reason why they
    cannot blend : economics and politics have diferent natures.
    My complete agreement with Piketty’s conclusions also take
    me to a complete disagreement with his
    recommendations of a progressive tax and a global
    tax on wealth. This would be a shortcut to hell : it
    would mean more government, bureaucracy, war,
    corruption or, in the economic view, it would transfer assets
    from the domain of supply and demand to the changing
    human will of bureaucrats and politicians – an antechamber
    to hell. Nothing is more predatory than the action of
    governments in the economy – indebtedness is what
    governments know how to do, and they do it unreservedly.
    “Deficits mean future tax increases, nothing less. The
    increase of deficits must be seen as a tax on future
    generations, and the politicians who create deficits should
    be judged as tax generators”. (Ron Paul, former US
    Senator – Republican).
    Our generation has been the victim of decisions from past
    generations, that increased indebtedness, just like future
    generations will have to pay for the inconsequence of our
    own generation, that expanded those debts even further.
    The European discussion about austerity or
    Keynesian stimuli mean to penalize our generation or
    our descendants. The problem is that policy makers
    search immediate applause, transfering the solution of
    structural problems to the future. These are inconsequent
    acts, showing no concern with future generations.
    “Do not forget that I have found out that more than ninety
    percent of all the national deficits, from 1921 to 1939, were
    caused by the payment of past, present and future wars”
    (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
    “People do not make war. It is the governments that
    make it” (Ronald Reagan)
    I would go back to the time of the American Revolution –
    “You will never strengthen the weak by weakening
    the strong” – and to the moments when the French
    Revolution was promising “liberty, fraternity and
    equality”.
    Inequality of opportunities in human coexistence has
    been generating the most terrible process of
    domination and human bondage : the dictatorship of
    bureaucracy. The enormous amount of financial resources
    under the power of the State, to be allocated by acts of
    human will, stimulates an unbridled race of unscrupulous
    politicians in search of power at any cost ; “They do not
    disdain, in certain cases, to associate with cheating,
    fraud and corruption”, to use the words of Vilfredo
    Pareto.
    It would be very efficient and useful if economic
    policymakers became convinced that applying more
    measures under the same keynesian references they
    would come to the same results. We must migrate to
    another reference frame if we wish to improve our
    development process.
    Economic rulers must be aware of the fact that : “If they
    do only what they have always done, they will end up
    having what they always had”. Piketty’s proposition,
    however, is for more of the same, and it would certainly
    lead to poor results.
    The relation between income and wealth is like a river
    flowing to a dam, where income is the variable of flow or
    the fluidity of the river, and wealth is the variable of stock
    or the accumulation in the dam. They both have the same
    nature, because wealth is no more than accumulated
    labour, and only labour can generate wealth. Piketty proved
    that there are some who harvest without planting, or who
    generate wealth with the labour of others ; when the rate of
    return on capital is higher than the rate of economic
    progress, it results in predatory accumulation. This is the
    patrimonialist economy, that produces income from
    inherited family properties or from political connections : to
    be a friend of the king produces more than merit or
    competence. It would be risible, were it not tragic, to
    imagine that the control of financial flows (currency,
    exchange and credit) can generate development, as
    suggested by Keynes. Only productive labour can
    generate capital.
    “Labor exists before, and is independent from capital.
    Capital is just the fruit of labor and it would never exist
    without the previous existence of labor. Labor is superior
    to capital, and deserves much more consideration.”
    This truth expressed by Abraham Lincoln must be
    recognized by all the zombies who are wandering, lost and
    disconnected from the basic concepts of economics.
    One must not criticize without a corresponding proposition.
    The solution is not among the tools of economic theory, but
    in the scope of politics, by means of a broad, full and true
    agreement around a new Social Pact, in which nutrition,
    health and education will become a responsibility of
    the private productive process, after the
    corresponding reduction of taxes by the government,
    who will also reduce its interference in the economy.
    Instead of transferring resources from the rich to the
    poor, this pact will equal opportunities concerning
    nutrition, health care and education. I do not mean
    philanthropy, but a new concept of human labor as a
    process of transformation of human energy in physical or
    intelectual energy. This would replace the changing logic of
    ideas –ideology- by the invariable logic of life – biology. Of
    course, entrepreneurs will not act out of philanthropy : full
    productive labor will be the broker of this agreement
    of wills.
    This idea is perfectly simple : Piketty proved that after
    centuries of distributive measures in all countries, in
    which resources were transferred from the rich to the
    poor, the result was more social exclusion.
    To prohibit wealth with a ceiling on income, as Piketty
    proposes, means to weaken the strong to strengthen the
    weak. Better would be, instead of a ceiling on income,
    to establish a groundfloor, so as to permit wealth and
    prohibit poverty, in an open system that would open the
    pressure cooker after the progressive dissipation of
    pressure.
    Let us equal, for all, the access to nutrition, health
    care and education, and liberate all the tools and
    values of the market economy.
    It was these values that made the West prosperous
    since the XIX Century and their efficiency has been
    confirmed.
    Instead of terming this my proposition utopic, theoretical or
    unfeasible, one must keep in mind that the complete
    liberation of prices and wages will lead us to full
    productive labour, that is : salaries will be ascending
    – there will be no need to establish a minimum wage
    – imagine the Industrial Revolution, at the beginning of the
    XIX Century.
    “Governamental institutions :
    a) protect the powerful and interest groups ;
    b) generate hostility, corruption and hopelessness ;
    c) hinder prosperity ; and
    d) repress free expression and the opportunities of
    individuals”. (IMB - Mises Institute).
    I offer, below, some challenges in the scope of this
    proposition, for the reader to ponder :
    1) the agricultural sector and the reversion of migration
    to the cities ;
    2) health care, education and the power in the hands of
    the private sector ; profit linked to people health.
    3) the financial sector and its incapability in the purchase
    and sale of papers having monetary expression. ; Christine
    Lagarde : “crisis has prompted a major course correction—
    with the understanding that the true role of the financial
    sector is to serve, not to rule, the economy.
    As Winston Churchill once remarked, “I would rather
    see finance less proud and industry more content”.
    4) the political area and the prevention of speculation
    when resources are reduced.
    Finally : In a Soccer World Cup or in the Olympic Games,
    just imagine how the competition would happen if political
    or bureaucratic influences were present in the choice of
    teams or in the rules of the games !
    “In Hell, the hottest places are reserved for those who
    chose neutrality in times of crisis’. (Dante Alighieri (1265-
    1321)
    Lets learn with the best lessons of Von Mises :
    · If history could teach us anything, it would be that
    private property is inextricably linked with civilization.
    · Those who are asking for more government
    interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion
    and less freedom.
    · Governments become liberal only when forced to by
    the citizens.
    · Both force and money are impotent against
    ideas.
    THE GREAT DIVIDE 2014, JUN 27 6:16 PM 793
    Inequality Is Not Inevitable
    By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
    “We need not just a new war on poverty but a war to
    protect the middle class. Solutions to these problems do
    not have to be newfangled. Far from it. Making markets
    act like markets would be a good place to start. We
    must end the rent-seeking society we have gravitated
    toward, in which the wealthy obtain profits by manipulating
    the system.
    The problem of inequality is not so much a matter of
    technical economics. It’s really a problem of practical
    politics. Ensuring that those at the top pay their fair share
    of taxes — ending the special privileges of speculators,
    corporations and the rich — is both pragmatic and fair. We
    are not embracing a politics of envy if we reverse a politics
    of greed. Inequality is not just about the top marginal
    tax rate but also about our children’s access to food
    and the right to justice for all. If we spent more on
    education, health and infrastructure, we would strengthen
    our economy, now and in the future. Just because you’ve
    heard it before doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it again.
    Widening and deepening inequality is not driven by
    immutable economic laws, but by laws we have
    written ourselves”.
    Conference on Inclusive Capitalism
    https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2014/052714.ht
    m
    By Christine Lagarde
    Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
    London, May 27, 2014
    “A greater concentration of wealth could—if unchecked—
    even undermine the principles of meritocracy and
    democracy. It could undermine the principle of equal rights
    proclaimed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
    Rights.
    Pope Francis recently put this in stark terms when he
    called increasing inequality “the root of social evil”.
    It is therefore not surprising that IMF research—which
    looked at 173 countries over the last 50 years—found that
    more unequal countries tend to have lower and less
    durable economic growth”.
    Best wishes,
    Ronaldo Campos Carneiro – June 2014
    rcarneiro4@gmail.com
    http://rcarneiro4@blogspot.com.br
    http://ronaldocarneiro.wordpress.com
    To understand Piketty’s book :
    http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 - Paris School of
    Economics
    CUNY debate with outstanding thinkers
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heOVJM2JZxI&feature=e
    m-subs_digest-vrecs
    Skidelsky’s blog –
    http://www.skidelskyr.com/”Skidelsky’sHYPERLINK
    “Too Much” : Special Thomas Piketty issue (26 May – Sam
    Pizzigati
    http://toomuchonline.org/weeklies2014/may262014.html
    John Weeks – “Why is ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ (C21C)
    Such a Success” ? 30 May 2014
    Debate Piketty and Senator Elizabeth Warren
    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/06/03-1
    I also suggest reading the texts on this subject by :
    David Harvey (“Afterthoughts on Piketty’s Capital”), plus
    Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrick, Joseph Stiglitz, Lawrence
    Summers, Robert Solow, James Galbraith.


    From : Thomas Piketty <thomas.piketty@psemail.eu>
    Date : 2014-06-13 3:37 GMT-03:00
    Subject : RE : Piketty’s Capital - The Answer of a convinced
    Liberal
    To : Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>
    Thanks Ronaldo, I appreciate it. Best, Thomas


    Thomas Piketty
    Ecole d'Economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics
    Page personnelle : http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/
    From : Thomas Piketty <thomas.piketty@psemail.eu>
    Date : 2014-07-02 7:38 GMT-03:00
    Subject : RE : Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced
    liberal
    To : Ronaldo Carneiro <rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br>
    Thanks Ronaldo, this is a very interesting reaction ! Best,
    Thomas


    Thomas Piketty
    Ecole d'Economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics
    Page personnelle : http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/


    From : Hector Julio Melchiori - june,13,2014
    hjmelchiori@gmail.com
    Creo que la diferencias comienzan en los tres primeros
    años de vida al no tener nivelado el alimento, ya que el
    intelecto se relaciona con la primera capacidad de ingesta,
    luego ya es tarde.
    CREO QUE LA IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDADES DEBE
    NACER ALLÍ, DESPUÉS MISMA EDUCACION Y MISMA
    INSTRUCCIÓN, LA EDUCACION SE DA EN EL HOGAR, PERO
    SI TENEMOS PADRES NO EDUCADOS, QUE A SU VEZ SON
    HIJOS DE OTROS PADRES NO EDUCADOS , VAMOS PEOR.
    POR ULTIMO LA INSTRUCCIÓN SE DA EN LOS COLEGIOS
    QUE DEBERÍAN DAR LAS MISMAS POSIBILIDADAES PARA
    TODOS, CON ESAS TRES COSAS ARRANCAMOS A UN
    FUTURO MEJOR,
    ES MI PERSONAL OPINIÓN QUE NO TIENE PORQUE SER
    NADA MAS QUE MI VERDAD, QUE ES ABSOLUTA SOLO
    PARA MÍ, PERO TODOS TIENEN EL DERECHO A TENER SUS
    VERDADES PROPIAS Y PARA ELLOS SERÁN VERDADES
    ABSOLUTAS TAMBIÉN,
    LO QUE HACE FALTA ES CONCORDAR PARTE DE LAS
    OPINIONES DE UN GRAN NÚMERO DE PERSONAS
    DISPUESTAS A TRABAJAR PERO QUE SABEN QUE ELLOS
    NO VERÁN LOS FRUTOS,
    ESO ES PARA LAS GENERACIONES VENIDERAS
    "SI TODOS CUMPLIERAMOS CON NUESTROS DEBERES
    HABRIA MENOS PERSONAS RECLAMANDO POR SUS
    DERECHOS" GHANDI DIXIT.
    ATTE. MELCHIORI.


    From : Pedro Schwartz <pedro@pedroschwartz.com>
    june,13,2014
    Dear Mr. Carneiro :
    I find what you say complicated and will think on it.
    However, I think Piketty is wrong in his forecast of the
    future of capitalism.
    Sincerely


    Dhian Chand <mdhianchand@hotmail.com> june.14,2014
    2006-7 DG - 3080 District
    Shimla Him. Pr. India
    Dear PDG Ronaldo Carneiro,
    Thank you for sending me your evaluation of Piketty's
    Capital - the answer of a convinced liberal. You have
    motivate me to buy and read his book "Capital in the 21st
    Century". You have rightly concluded in the last four points,
    the people responsible to create balance in the social
    economic status in the society. However, the question
    remained unanswered that politicians and bureaucrats have
    no limit for their greed for money and power which
    ultimately encourage corruption in the country and war
    between neighbouring countries. If we are able to influence
    these two category of our society the balance in distribution
    of economic growth will be maintained and there will be no
    poor in the modern world which due to technology
    evolution has become one a global village.
    Regards
    Dhian Chand


    From : Anthony de Jasay <jasay@wanadoo.fr>
    14/6/14
    Dear Mr. Carneiro,
    I have had your letter of 13 June read to me (as you may
    know I have lost my eyesight long ago). I agree with most
    of it , but as you must know very well it is not by
    condemning politics and politicians for being toxic and
    nasty that thay will become any less harmful. They are a
    probably inevitable product of one man, one vote.
    Yous sincerely,
    Anthony de Jasay


    From : Stephen Raudenbush - 13/6/14
    sraudenb@uchicago.edu
    Dear Ronald
    Thanks for sending this. I have admired your work and
    made very good use of your book with James Heckman on
    inequality.
    I do have a few questions
    * Why are key elements of Sen's "human development
    index" so much better in the European social democracies
    than in the US ?
    * Why have the countries that employed a Keynesian
    stimulus done so much better during the recession than
    countries that used the recession to reduce government
    spending ?
    I believe you have offered a false choice between heavy
    government involvement and light government
    involvement. All sides are competing to use the
    government to support their own special interest. If the
    government does not intervene to insure child care,
    education, health, housing, minimum wage, unemployment
    insurance, and social security for the elderly, and protect
    the environment, the result will not be a utopian laissez
    faire society. Instead, government resources will be
    directed entirely to prop up agri-business, build roads to
    support real estate developers, save failing banks, generate
    unneeded contracts for lobbyists, etc. In sum, we will have
    neither social democracy nor laissez faire but rather
    socialism for the rich, which is pretty much what the US has
    now.
    Why did you not comment on our extraordinarily corrupt
    political system in which running for low level offices now
    requires millions of dollars ? Where huge firms literally
    dictate legislation to the office holders they have
    bankrolled ?
    I would propose a government role that does the good
    things I mentioned above while aggressively intervening
    against oligopoly and favoritism to insure competition in the
    market place. The government can be a friend of the free
    market and a friend of meritocracy while insuring basic
    necessities, particularly for the children and the elderly, and
    supporting human capital development.
    Sincerely
    Steve Raudenbush


    From : William Anderson - 13/6/14
    banderson@frostburg.edu
    If these points are true, then are you saying that the vast
    amount of people are materially poorer than they were,
    say, in 1980 ? That they have fewer goods and services
    available to them now than they had then ?
    It seems to me that the theories depend upon (1)
    homogeneous capital (capital as a lump of stuff that is
    useful primarily for how much is spent in creating and
    accumulating it), and (2) underconsumption. We have been
    getting underconsumption theories at least since “Fable of
    the Bees.”
    Now, we do have a lot of what is called crony capitalism
    today, in which owners of capital, through political
    alliances, are able to force resources into a direction that
    would not be profitable (or would be less profitable) without
    the government intervention. However, from what I can
    tell, Piketty is not so worried about this development.
    Piketty would prefer lots of people to be poor to make Bill
    Gates and a few other people pay more taxes.
    If Piketty’s thesis is true, then the vast majority of people
    today are poorer than were the people of the early 1800s,
    when the development of large-scale capital really took off
    in Great Britain and in Europe. Are you prepared to say
    that ? Think of the logic of his thesis ; are you prepared to
    claim that a larger percentage of people are poor today
    (and living in worse conditions) than were people of the
    early 1800s ?
    Then, to follow Piketty’s logic, the bifurcated returns to
    capital (versus ordinary income growth) would have to be
    consistent from the very start. Thus, you are having to
    claim that the poor today are poorer than the vast majority
    of people in the early 19th Century. Can you empirically
    justify that statement ?


    From : g.reisman@capitalism.net - 13/6/14
    Dear Mr. Carneiro :
    Thank you for your review of Piketty.
    Attached, please find a copy of my review of him, which
    I’ve just posted to my blog.
    Sincerely,
    George Reisman


    From : studiosarpietro@gmail.com
    june, 16, 2014
    Dear fellow Rotarian Ronaldo Carneiro,
    thank you very much. your thoughts on the book of Piketty
    are very interesting, especially in this period we are going
    through.
    I will continue to reflect on this, and I will send it to my
    daughter who is studying Economics.
    Many greetings.
    Salvatore Sarpietro
    2007-08 DG – 2110 District


    Benegas-Lynch, Jr., Alberto
    National Academy of Sciences, Argentina
    abenegaslynch@yahoo.com – june,20,2014
    Dear Ronaldo Carneiro, thak you for sending your
    papers that I will read with great interest. In the
    meanwhile, I copy one of my weakly columns on the
    subject. Cordially, Alberto Benegas Lynch, Jr


    From : Jeff Deist
    jeffdeist@mises.org - june,20,2014
    Excellent, thank you. Jeff


    From : Floy Lilley <floylilley@mises.com>
    Date : 2014-06-20 17:29 GMT-03:00
    Subject : Re : About Piketty’ s Book on Capital - The answer
    of a convinced liberal
    To : Ronaldo Carneiro <rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br>
    Hello Mr. Carneiro,
    Your enthusiasm for this project is palpable. That's a fine
    way to feel about whatever you do.
    You embrace Piketty's work in ways that I do not. I do not
    find that he proves his thesis.
    Thank you for having thought of me.
    Best,
    Floy Lilley


    From : Rev. Robert A. Sirico <rsirico@acton.org>
    Date : 2014-06-21 13:30 GMT-03:00
    Subject : RE : About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer
    of a convinced Liberal
    To : Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>
    Dear Ronaldo :
    Your email arrive just as I had begun reading Pikettey’s
    book Capital, so I shall now do so with your critique in
    mind.
    Many thanks,
    Fr. Robert A. Sirico,
    President
    The Acton Institute


    From : Gary North <gnorth@poetworld.net>
    Date : 2014-06-23 9:02 GMT-03:00
    Subject : RE : About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer
    of a convinced Liberal
    To : Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>
    Don't start with Pikkety. Start woth Pareto : 1897
    From : Jaana Woiceshyn <jwoiceshyn@gmail.com>
    Date : 2014-07-11 1:29 GMT-03:00
    Subject : RE : Why competition is good and regulation bad
    To : Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>
    Thank you, Ronaldo.—My silence does not imply anything
    but me being swamped and not being able to find the time
    to correspond—sorry. I hope my life will get less busy soon.
    But in general, I disagree with Piketty’s thesis. Inequality is
    a non-issue ! Regards, Jaana
    From : Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>
    Date : 2014-07-11 1:56 GMT-03:00
    Subject : Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced
    liberal
    To : Ronaldo Carneiro <rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br>
    Thanks for sending. Hope to get to it soon.
    From : Info <info@profilebooks.co.uk>
    Date : 2014-07-18 5:41 GMT-03:00
    Subject : RE : Inequalities
    To : Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>
    Hello,
    Thank you so much for your email below.
    Unfortunately, Profile books do not accept unsolicited
    material. However, we do recommend the following
    websites as industry standard for gaining a reputable agent
    as well as other tips for publishing. Please do not pay an
    agent either – this is usually not a good sign.
    · Writers and Artists yearbook
    · Preditors and editors
    · Absolute write
    We most certainly wish you the best with getting published.
    Kind regards,
    Olu
    *****************************************
    Olu Ubadike
    Office Manager
    Profile Books
    3A Exmouth House
    Pine Street
    Exmouth Market
    London
    From : Ieva NAVICKAIT ? <Ieva@llri.lt>
    Date : 2014-08-01 4:07 GMT-03:00
    Subject : RE : Inequalities
    To : Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>
    Thank you for sharing, Ronaldo. It will be very interesing to
    read your remarks on Piketty‘s book. Let‘s keep in touch.
    Best wishes. Ieva
    Christopher Spackman comentou
    sua publicação.
    Christopher escreveu : "Thanx for the article.
    Thoughts. 1. Agree that capitalism is well on the way
    to eating itself 2. Agree that war is a major problem.
    Nation states have abrogated the right to billions of
    unprofitable dollars. 3. Agree that answer is probably
    not a 'ceiling' but a 'floor' - in other words, the tax
    system. If the 'haves' agree to pay generously, then
    the problems you point out with health, education,
    etc. will disappear. The problem occurs when the
    'haves' think they own their money and try to hold it
    all. Conclusion : a neat summary of the problem ;-)
    Christopher"


Un message, un commentaire ?

modération a priori

Ce forum est modéré a priori : votre contribution n’apparaîtra qu’après avoir été validée par un administrateur du site.

Qui êtes-vous ?
Votre message

Pour créer des paragraphes, laissez simplement des lignes vides.

Lettre Libertés

Suivez les publications de l'IREF, inscrivez-vous gratuitement à notre lettre journalière