[ad_1]
From his perspective in France, economist Thomas Piketty set the agenda for the release of "Capital of the 21st Century" in 2013. In short, the full book shows that there is money that has made the greatest value, not work or production for 200 years.
Thus, the French took the lead in the debate over disagreements, globalization and growing economic differences. Capital has developed through freer international trade, while national authorities have been unable to create a good distribution.
Piketty got superstar status. Here at home confirmed by a visit to Skavlan, where he challenged the Norwegian owner Bjørn Kjos with a classic and thick accent: "Aou (how much is your wealth?"
Kjos did not understand the question no more It was repeated:
"Aaooou are you your wealth?"
Now Piketty is back in the mane, this time with a kind of follow-up to his book project. a broader survey of electoral movements and comes to a preliminary conclusion: the left side has failed the poor, and so has also lost them.
This sounds like music in many ears here at home. An interview with Piketty was printed on three pages of the class struggle of yesterday, with an associated distilled and politically fit ranking in the same place.
Pikettys research strikes a political nerve, which also works in Norway. One of the major shifts of the political debate in Norway over the past year has been the accession of Norway to the EU through the EEA agreement. To have been a political pillow, obtained thanks to strong support among the majority in the Storting, it was seriously challenged this winter
The article continues during the advertisement
L & # 39; National Assembly had to decide on a seemingly affordable case. at ACER – a coordinating body in the EU for the trade in electricity. Suddenly, hell was loose. The Labor Party was almost divided in the middle. With a weakened Labor debate, which has been the leftwing guarantor of international cooperation and affiliation with Europe, Norway has become more like the rest of Europe. There are Ap-brother parties with fractures in every country. The radical left and the radical right find themselves in common with the elites at the center of politics, as supporters and opponents of binding international cooperation.
Or as Piketty calls them "globalists" and "nativists".
Piketty analyzes that lies in the fact that the left side is no longer fighting for those who used to vote for them – the poorly educated and poorly paid. His research clearly shows that these constituencies now tend to turn to right-wing radical parties, such as the National Front in France and the Republicans under Donald Trump in the United States.
Well, until now. The problem arises when Piketty will recommend a solution. Globalization and binding international cooperation are not a problem in themselves. Piketty does not think so either.
Overall, if we consider the effects of globalization, it has been an unconditional good for humankind. Statistics show that free trade has contributed to economic growth that has increased income and significantly improved the living conditions of a large part of the world's population. The poor and middle classes in developing countries, rich in industrialized countries, are the winners. The relative losers are the middle class in the industrialized countries. In other words, they have not lost, they have less prospered than the other groups.
As an enlightened and educated man Piketty's answer to this obviously does not end globalization but improves it. He wants closer integration in Europe and proposes a common European tax system. You can not have the free flow of capital, people, goods and services, without having a common fiscal policy as a redistribution. "
Is the radical Norwegian left still with?" Avisa expresses an attitude that is probably quite representative: Pikettys' proposal for a solution is briefly described as "a sort of pan-European welfare state, built on the European tax claim "before being dismissed.Then comes the conclusion:
" What is clear, anyway, is that a left-hand side that can not provide the same. social equalization, is not life long term. "
It's as if the air was heard from the balloon. It illustrates how much it is possible to skip key elements in this important debate about inequality and globalization, of course, the left side has to work for social leveling.
The interesting thing is to ask: how should the Norwegian left be "globalist" or "nativists"? If they choose the latter, they will have to ntot find a model different from that of Thomas Piketty
Source link
