Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yes, - So What?: Twenty-First Century
Yes, - So What?: Twenty-First Century
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151059
By N. Gregory Mankiw*
Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the the great achievements of human history and
Twenty-First Century captured the public’s the best way to organize a society, as I do, these
attention in a way that few books by econo- conclusions present a significant challenge.
mists have. Though its best-seller status was a The first thing to say about Piketty’s logic
surprise, probably even to its author, it has the is that it will seem strange to any economist
ingredients that foster wide appeal. The book trained in the neoclassical theory of economic
addresses a pressing issue of the day in a man- growth. The condition r > g should be familiar.
ner that is learned, literary, speculative, provoc- In the textbook Solow growth model, it arrives
ative, and fascinating from beginning to end. naturally as a steady-state condition as long
While largely a work of economic history, it as the economy does not save so much as to
does not stop there. Piketty ultimately leads the push the capital stock beyond the Golden Rule
reader to a vision of what the future may hold level (Phelps 1961). In this model, r > g is not
and advice about what policymakers should do a problem, but r < g could be. If the rate of
about it. That vision is a dystopia of continu- return is less than the growth rate, the economy
ally increasing economic inequality due to the has accumulated an excessive amount of capi-
dynastic accumulation of capital, leading to a tal. In this dynamically inefficient situation, all
policy recommendation of a steeply progres- generations can be made better off by reduc-
sive global tax on wealth. ing the economy’s saving rate. From this per-
Although I admire Piketty and his book, I am spective, we should be reassured that we live
not persuaded by his main conclusions. A chain in a world in which r > g because it means we
is only as strong as its weakest links, and several have not left any dynamic Pareto improvements
links in Piketty’s chain of argument are espe- unexploited.
cially fragile. Other aspects of Piketty’s book There is, moreover, good reason to doubt that
may well pass the test of time, but the bottom r > g leads to the “endless inegalitarian spiral”
line—his vision of the future and the consequent that Piketty describes. Imagine a wealthy person
policy advice—most likely will not. living in an r > g economy who wants to ensure
The book documents that the rate of return on that he has an endless stream of wealthy descen-
private capital r exceeds the economy’s growth dants. He can pass his wealth on to his chil-
rate g, and it argues that this will likely con- dren, but to ensure that his descendants remain
tinue to be the case, perhaps by a larger amount wealthy, he faces three obstacles.
in the future. Piketty (2014, p. 571) boldly First, his heirs will consume some of the
calls this fact “the central contradiction of cap- wealth they inherit. For this purpose, the rele-
italism.” He reasons that if r > g, the wealth vant measure of consumption includes not only
of the capitalist class will grow faster than the food, shelter, and riotous living but also political
incomes of workers, leading to an “endless and philanthropic contributions, which can be
inegalitarian spiral” (p. 572). To someone who sizable for wealthy families. A plausible esti-
views relatively unfettered capitalism as one of mate of the marginal propensity to consume out
of wealth, based on both theory and empirical
* Department of Economics, Harvard University, evidence, is about 3 percent. Thus, if wealth
Cambridge, MA 02138 (e-mail: ngmankiw@harvard.edu). I earns a rate of return of r, wealth accumulates at
am grateful to Laurence Ball, Ben Friedman, David Laibson, a rate of about r − 3.
Lisa Mogilanski, Lawrence Summers, Gabriel Unger, and Second, as wealth is passed down from gen-
Matthew Weinzierl for comments.
†
Go to http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151059 to visit eration to generation, it is divided among a
the article page for additional materials and author disclo- growing number of descendants. (This would
sure statement. not be a problem for the wealthy patron if his
43
44 AEA PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS MAY 2015
heirs’ mating were perfectly assortative—that horizons, it seems unlikely that, looking for-
is, if they all married someone of equal wealth. ward, r will start exceeding g by more than 7
But matters of the heart are rarely so neat.) To percentage points. If the real return remains sta-
get a rough calibration of this effect, suppose ble at 5 percentage points, the economy’s growth
everyone has a typical family of two children, rate would need to become a negative 2 percent.
so the number of descendants doubles every Secular stagnation would not be enough; we
generation. Because generations are about 35 would need secular decline. Alternatively, if
years apart, the number of descendants grows future growth is 2 percent per year, the real rate
at a rate of 2 percent per year. Thus, if family of return to capital would need to rise from its
wealth accumulates at a rate of r − 3, wealth per historical 5 percent to more than 9 percent. That
descendant grows at a rate of r − 5. figure is nowhere near the return that pension
Third, many governments impose taxes on and endowment managers are now projecting
both bequests and capital income. In the United from a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds.
States today, the estate tax rate is 40 percent Hence, the forces of consumption, procre-
(above a threshold). In Massachusetts, where I ation, and taxation are, and will probably con-
live, the state imposes an additional estate tax tinue to be, sufficient to dilute family wealth
with a top rate of 16 percent. As a result, at the over time. As a result, I don’t see it as likely that
margin, about half of a family’s wealth is taxed the future will be dominated by a few families
away by the government once every generation. with large quantities of dynastic wealth, passed
If we again assume a generation is 35 years, from generation to generation, forever enjoying
then estate taxation reduces the accumulation the life of the rentier.
of dynastic wealth by about 2 percent per year. But suppose I am wrong. Suppose the dynas-
In addition, capital income taxation during a tic accumulation of capital describes the future,
person’s life reduces capital accumulation even as Piketty suggests. I would nonetheless remain
further. This effect is roughly an additional 1 skeptical of Piketty’s proposal to place an addi-
percent per year, making the total drag of taxes tional tax on wealth. A simple, standard neoclas-
about 3 percent per year. Let’s assume, however, sical growth model illustrates the problem with
that our dynasty has especially good tax plan- this policy.
ning and put the total tax effect at only 2 percent. Consider an economy composed of two kinds
Thus, taking taxation into account, wealth per of people—workers and capitalists. Many work-
descendant grows at a rate of about r − 7. ers supply labor inelastically and immediately
We can now recalibrate Piketty’s logic taking consume their earnings. A few capitalists own
these three effects into account. Piketty reasons the capital stock and, because they represent an
that resources of the wealthy would grow rela- infinitely-living dynasty, set their consumption
tive to the labor income if r > g. We can now according to the standard model of an optimiz-
see, however, that this condition is not sufficient ing infinitely-lived consumer (as in the Ramsey
once consumption, procreation, and taxation are model). Workers and capitalists come together
accounted for. Instead, to obtain the worrisome to produce output, using a production function
“endless inegalitarian spiral,” we would need that experiences labor-augmenting technolog-
the return on capital r to exceed the economy’s ical progress, and they earn the value of their
growth g by at least 7 percentage points per year. marginal product. In addition, following the
This scenario is far from what we have expe- advice of Piketty, the government imposes a
rienced. Piketty estimates the real rate of return tax on capital equal to τ per period, the revenue
to be about 4 or 5 percent, which seems plausi- from which is transferred to workers.
ble for a typical balanced portfolio. Meanwhile, To oversimplify a bit, let’s just focus on this
the average growth rate of the US economy has economy’s steady state. Using mostly conven-
been about 3 percent. So Piketty is right that r tional notation, it is described by the following
has exceeded g, but it has done so by only about equations:
2 percentage points, not the more than 7 percent-
age points necessary for the creation of Piketty’s (1) cw = w + τ k
imagined dystopia.
Moreover, while economists are notoriously
(2) ck = (r − τ − g)nk
bad at predicting the future, especially over long
VOL. 105 NO. 5 YES, r > g. SO WHAT? 45
capitalists would be just as wealthy as they are am less concerned. The wealthy includes sup-
without it, but they would not fully enjoy the porters of both the right (the Koch brothers,
fruits of their wealth. Sheldon Adelson) and the left (George Soros,
With this model as background, let’s move to Tom Steyer), and despite high levels of inequal-
the big question: Why should we be concerned ity, in 2008 and 2012 the United States man-
about inequality in wealth? Why should anyone aged to elect a left-leaning president committed
care if some families have accumulated capital to increasing taxes on the rich. The fathers of
and enjoy the life of the rentier? Piketty writes American democracy, including George
about such inequality as if we all innately Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,
share his personal distaste for it. But before we and James Madison, were very rich men. With
embark on policies aimed at reducing wealth estimated net worth (in today’s dollars) rang-
inequality, such as a global tax on capital, it ing from $20 million to $500 million, they were
would be useful to explore why this inequality likely all in the top 0.1 percent of the wealth
matters. distribution, demonstrating that the accumu-
One place to look for answers is Occupy Wall lation of capital is perfectly compatible with
Street, the protest movement that drew atten- democratic values. Yet, to the extent that wealth
tion to growing inequality. This movement was inequality undermines political ideals, reform of
motivated, I believe, by the sense that the afflu- the electoral system is a better solution than a
ence of the financial sector was a threat to other growth-depressing tax on capital.
people’s living standards. In the aftermath of a My own view—and I recognize that this is
financial crisis followed by a deep recession, a statement of personal political philosophy
this sentiment was understandable. Yet the pro- more than economics—is that wealth inequal-
testers seemed not to object to affluence itself. If ity is not a problem in itself. And I do not see
they had, Occupy Wall Street would have been anything objectionable if the economically suc-
accompanied by Occupy Silicon Valley, Occupy cessful use their good fortune to benefit their
Hollywood, and Occupy Major League Baseball. children rather than spending it on themselves.
From this perspective, the rentier lifestyle of As a society, we should help those at the bot-
capitalists should not be a concern. As we have tom of the economic ladder through such pol-
seen, in a standard neoclassical growth model, icies as a well-functioning educational system
the owners of capital earn the value of their mar- and a robust social safety net (funded with a
ginal contribution to the production process, and progressive consumption tax). And we should
their accumulation of capital enhances the pro- help people overcome impediments to saving,
ductivity and incomes of workers. thereby allowing more workers to become cap-
Another possibility is that we object to wealth italists. But if closing the gap between rich and
inequality because it is not fair. Why should poor lowers everyone’s standard of living, as I
someone be lucky enough to be born into a fam- believe Piketty’s global tax on capital would do,
ily of capitalists whereas someone else is born I see little appeal to the proposal.
into a family of workers? The disparity between
workers and capitalists is inconsistent with the REFERENCES
ideal of equal opportunity. Yet that ideal conflicts
with another—the freedom of parents to use their Atkeson, Andrew, V. V. Chari, and Patrick J.
resources to help their children (Fishkin 1984). Kehoe. 1999. “Taxing Capital Income: A Bad
Moreover, in considering Piketty’s proposal Idea.” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
of a global capital tax, we have to ask: Would Quarterly Review 23 (3): 3–17.
you rather be born into a world in which we are Chamley, Christophe. 1986. “Optimal Taxation
unequal but prosperous or a world in which we of Capital Income in General Equilibrium with
are more equal but all less prosperous? Even if Infinite Lives.” Econometrica 54 (3): 607–22.
equal opportunity is a goal, one might still pre- Fishkin, James S. 1984. Justice, Equal Opportu-
fer unequal opportunities to be rich over equal nity and the Family. New Haven: Yale Univer-
opportunities to be poor. sity Press.
A final possibility is that wealth inequal- Judd, Kenneth L. 1985. “Redistributive Taxation
ity is somehow a threat to democracy. Piketty in a Simple Perfect Foresight Model.” Journal
alludes to this worry throughout his book. I of Public Economics 28 (1): 59–83.
VOL. 105 NO. 5 YES, r > g. SO WHAT? 47
Phelps, Edmund S. 1961. “The Golden Rule the Harvard University Press.
of Accumulation: A Fable for Growthmen.” Straub, Ludwig, and Iván Werning. 2014. “Posi-
American Economic Review 51 (4): 638–43. tive Long Run Capital Taxation: Chamley-Judd
Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-first Revisited.” Unpublished.
Century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
This article has been cited by:
1. Yasunori Fujita. 2016. Piketty’s Capital-Income Theory Reconsidered for a Small Open Economy
with Increasing Savings Rate. Open Journal of Statistics 06, 25-30. [CrossRef]
2. Jamie Morgan. 2015. Piketty's Calibration Economics: Inequality and the Dissolution of Solutions?.
Globalizations 12, 803-823. [CrossRef]