Reddit reviews Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization
We found 3 Reddit comments about Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Belknap Press
A better financial history type book is the Reinhart & Rogoff one.
As long as you are building a list, let me share my to-read list after I finish reading my current book:
You should also read Piketty's book and Bernanke's book but I didn't list them since I have read them and assume you have read them too.
I tend to only read and alternate between history and econ books for my pop/non-academic reading. I've only listed the pop-econ books since I assume that's what you are after.
Has anyone else read any of the books on my list? Are some terrible? If so let me know so I can avoid them.
This is an article by Branco Milanovic who wrote Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization
He argues that the winners of globalization were the middle and upper classes of the relatively poor Asian countries and the global top 1%.
"Most people believe that inequality is rising—and indeed it has been rising for a while in a number of rich countries. And there is lots of talk and realization of this. It’s harder to understand that at the same time, you can actually have global inequality going down. Technically speaking, national inequality can increase in every single country and yet global inequality can go down. "
" I propose a simple model that attempts to take into account the fact that people care about both their absolute income level as well as their relative positions in national income distributions — not global ones."
"In most countries, and especially in the big ones like China, India, the United States, and Russia, national inequalities have risen. So if people are more focused on national inequality, their concerns about what is happening at home will dominate the “objective” reduction of inequality across the globe."
"if you take three large countries like the US, Germany, and Japan, the lower half of the income distribution has really seen very little growth over the past 25 years. So the reaction now is to lash out against two perceived problems.
One problem is substitution of their labor by cheaper imports from the rest of the world.
And another one is migration, which is somewhat similar, because again it is people from the outside who are actually saying they’re willing to do the job for less money.
So I think this is the reaction which is populist—the reaction which says “I would like to have less of globalization if it involves a really great threat to my job.”
The danger of that in my opinion is that globalization has many good features, and that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not exactly the best policy. The world output would certainly go down if we were to start putting tariff rates and competitive devaluation and so on.
The second danger is the danger of plutocracy. There, people in the rich countries who have done very well, who are at the top of the income pyramid, try to steamroll over the opposition of the middle without changing anything in social programs, or any redistribution. And they take their votes for a given. They have rich people that bankroll them. And the globalization would continue, but it would continue with permanent dissatisfaction among large segments of the people. "
On the solution:
" the answer is really greater attention from the winners of globalization towards those who are dissatisfied. Because the well understood self-interest at the top would tell them that you cannot just continue with policies forever if you have a significant pool of people who are unhappy. So the self-interest would say, “let’s see what we can do to make their position better.”
It could be higher tax on the top incomes, closing down the loopholes they have at the top that lobbyists have been very successful at making, encouraging small shareholders—broadening the ownership of capital, which is very heavily concentrated..."
Here's also an interview with him: http://gawker.com/global-inequality-explained-by-branko-milanovic-1780110436
van een andere post die ik ooit gepost heb
>Gordon – The rise and fall of American Growth http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10544.html
Title speaks for itself, a little old:
Okun – Equality and Efficieny https://www.brookings.edu/book/equality-and-efficiency-the-big-tradeoff/
Book on the different earnings of capital and labour:
Piketty – Capital in the 21st century http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006 (relevant for seeing that indeed capital is paying more than labour)
Arguing that equality isn't everything:
Mary Ann Manson - The equality trap (argues the opposite as what I did on redistribution basically) https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-sites/mary-ann-mason/books/the-equality-trap/
On inequality in general:
Milanovic – Global Inequality http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674737136
1e gaat vooral over koopkracht groei vergeken met technologische vooruitgang.
Als je echt simpele termen wil oid, is dat natuurlijk moelijk (hier kan je echt een levenstudie aan toewijden). Dit is wel een goed boek om mee te beginnen, misschien kan je ergens een korte samenvatting vinden hier van. Pikkety is ook heel erg aan te raden en daar zijn wel goedkope samenvattingen van. Dit is ook wel boeiend, alleen natuurlijk wel behooooooooooorlijk normatief.