YT auto captions are a gourmet treat sometimes, especially if you are stoned.

How profound.

@@agentsmidt3209: But at least chucku00 isn't grading Pikkety based on the impenetrability ratio of his accent. I'm a studio musician and couldn't help but be aware that Pikkety is such a nerd he didn't realize he became more unintelligible when he turned away from his lapel-clipped mic. But that said, Pikkety is important because of the content and detail he goes into in his overview and comparisons. Listening to him in roundtables with Stiglitz, Reich and other world-class economists always makes it clear how groundbreaking and content-rich he is. I'll put up with the difficulty of understanding him because I want to hear what he's actually saying. One other difficulty with this talk: he's effectively correcting what he saw as the narrower worldview of Capital in the Twenty-First Century. So instead of a summary of his later lecture, this is more like hearing him recite an updated appendix to his most important book. And of course his site offers the most current information on economic inequality, so he has nothing to apologize for! He could simply have talked about the larger context of economic inequality without having to correct his earlier focus. His comparison of India versus China and the U.S. versus Western Europe was fascinating, I thought.

You know economists are talking way too much about things outside their expertise when they start analysing the evolution of Tiger Woods.

@@wille5263 #underrated comment

the best comments really do rise to the top

It's french subtitle in english

You seem to forget that correlation does not mean causation.

“I DETEST anyone...” wow!

@@geoffrey955 It is a pre-requisite, so technically causation means colleration. There, fixed your cognitive dissonance.

@@AA-lu5gp Colleration. Really. Great.

@@geoffrey955 ahah so true!

wid(dot)world

I like trains.

after a while you get used to his accent

Pls stop it bot. U are commenting the same stuff under every video.

There's vomit on his sweater already, Thomas Piketty

So is family. Everything in society is causes stress, depression and anxiety for somebody. But specifically, what is it about inequality that is so terrible?

It’s the degree of it. Socially destabilizing. The morality of it too. We had the Gilded Age before the Great Depression.

nothing. those who are less than equal are envious and jealous and demand equality.

Alexander Anderson exactly it's neither good or bad. If anything equality is bad because it's unnatural and it's a massive attempt to change society and to lower those who by their merit or fortune(born that way) are better off

Johnny Smit Never It’s the degree of it not the fact it exists. I’ve made crappy money and good money but i never felt jealous. But study history. Massive inequality is destabilizing. And it’s not ‘natural’. It’s produced by deliberate policy decisions.

Thank you for your profound analysis.

The beautiful comment above was brought to you by... JP Morgan, Multinational corporations, Neoliberal organizations & The Pinochet Endowment.

@@rudiesan_89 Nah, just freedom loving humans with IQs above room temperature.

@@Monopolist91 Unfortunately.. it takes an IQ above a room temp. to understand a proposition between freedom & equality is laughable. Such a binary decision suits those that are only determined in seeming smart.

@@rudiesan_89 i think most people concentrated in inequality are just fueled by envy , bill gates is richer than me, and im not after some politician to steal his money and hand it out to the masses (keep in mind that the politician will take his share of this money to play the middleman) , once you do that microsoft is gone, with the thousands of high paying jobs that it created, and for what, for a few foodstamps per family? You cant help the poor by weakening the rich, never worked, never will.

"My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard." -Kelis

not enough lobsters for you?

@@OdwallaJuice Suspect too highbrow, compared to Peterson's drivel.

I was thinking the same thing. Peterson is better at interpreting data.

​@@allthatmusic2527 oh my god you're so clueless its almost funny

It is, if you hold equality to be the most important thing to achieve.

And when you recognize there is no such thing as equality...that which has never, can never and will never be either desirable or achievable anywhere in the World....perhaps only then can one begin to deconstruct backward toward sanity, all these weird theories. I have long studied Piketty, knowing only that he was French. 2 minutes into this presentation, seeing him in the flesh first time, has answered all my hitherto unanswered questions. But for one: Is he off his rocker or is there something terribly, terribly wrong with our political systems?

First Right so, I believe the most sensible view on this to be broadly the view of people like Piketty, who don't believe in absolute equality or the Abolition of currency, and thus the destruction of the biggest incentive for aspiration in our societies, but recognises that too much has profound psychological damage and whilst it isn't necessarily immoral, is not a recipe for a functional society. There needs to be a balance, as with every possible value in society. Liberty and justice can too lead to problems if there is too much or not enough.

First Unjustified inequality is a bad thing. Inequality is only justified as long as the whole society is better of as the result of that inequality. But if inequality is the result of unproductive rent seeking it's not justified. In the end the income and wealth you get largely depended on factors you have no influence over like parents, IQ, education, upbringing and even traits like "working hard" are mostly determined by genetics and upbringing. So why is it fair that we reward intelligent people with large incomes? It's because everyone is better of when we do so, with the right incentives smart people usually create a lot of wealth for society. The problem is a lot of inequality is not productive for society as a whole and should be solved.

Paul Schmitz Well I disagree, inequality is only bad if it is actually harmful towards society, it really doesn't matter what the origin is I think. To me the issue is when it causes massive societal problems, so frankly even if theoretically there was massive amounts of justified inequality, it would still cause societal problems later down the line and be part of the reason why people are trapped in poverty.

Perhaps you should revisit the Pareto Principle and consider its application to the questions discussed in the video in their context.