Markets

All the Things Thomas Pikkety Got Wrong

The author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century has a flawed view of capitalism.

Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which examines the long-term changes in the distribution of income, has become an unexpected best seller in the U.S. Piketty concludes that the rich have become wealthier at the expense of the poor, and he claims that basic forces in a capitalist economy are the cause. He advocates a global “wealth tax” to redress the inequalities that he asserts undermine all democracies.

QUIZ: Wall Street Truth or Bunk

There has been much criticism of Piketty’s data. But what most disturbs me are the weak and fallacious assumptions that form the foundation of his analysis.

The “fundamental laws of capitalism” that he describes in the first and fifth chapters are cases in point. Fundamental laws are important principles that govern the natural world, such as the laws of motion and gravity described by Isaac Newton. But Piketty’s laws provide no such revelations.

For example, his first fundamental law is expressed as an equation which states that the share of national income that’s derived from capital—such as stocks, bonds and real estate—is equal to the rate of return on capital times capital divided by income. But that equation is not a fundamental law at all! It is a definition that holds for all countries at all times. Piketty actually admits as much, but nonetheless considers a definition critical to understanding the dynamic forces of capitalism.

The same can be said of his second fundamental law, which relates the amount of capital to the level of saving where there is a constant ratio of capital to income. I fail to see what, if anything, either of these two “laws” says about the distribution of income. Most distressingly, neither law has anything to do with capitalism. Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners who seek profit. But Piketty’s equations apply whether the economy is capitalist, socialist, communist or fascist. His equations are based on definitions of capital, output and growth that are true in all economies and have nothing at all to do with capitalism.

Questionable framework. Equally disturbing is Piketty’s identification of the “fundamental force” that causes the widening of income distribution. He claims that inequality is rising because the rate of return on capital is greater than the growth rate of the economy. When the return on capital exceeds growth, he says, then “it logically follows that inherited wealth grows faster than output or income.”

But this statement is absolutely wrong. Wealth grows faster than income only if investors consume little or none of their return on capital, and that is contradicted by historical data. When I wrote the first edition of Stocks for the Long Run in 1994, I determined that the average real long-term return on stocks was 6.7% per year, more than twice the real growth of the economy. But that doesn’t mean that the value of stocks grows faster than output; after all, investors consume part of the dividends and capital gains they receive. In fact, substantial evidence shows that the value of stocks (and other capital) grows over time at about the same rate as the real economy.

In his “laws,” Piketty assumes that the ratio of capital to income remains constant. If that’s the case, then investors whose wealth rises relative to income are balanced by those whose wealth falls. He ignores the many fortunes that are dissipated by the profligate spending of heirs and the large sums that are given away to charity.

Piketty’s conceptual framework is so flawed that we should have little confidence in his sweeping conclusions. The distribution of wealth is indeed a valid subject for study. But Capital in the Twenty-First Century does nothing to advance our understanding of income inequality.

Columnist Jeremy J. Siegel is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and the author of Stocks for the Long Run and The Future for Investors.

Most Popular

Where's My Stimulus Check? Use the IRS's "Get My Payment" Portal to Get an Answer
Coronavirus and Your Money

Where's My Stimulus Check? Use the IRS's "Get My Payment" Portal to Get an Answer

The IRS updated its popular online tool so that you can track the status of your second stimulus check.
January 9, 2021
How a Third Stimulus Check Could Differ From Your First and Second Payments
Coronavirus and Your Money

How a Third Stimulus Check Could Differ From Your First and Second Payments

There's going to be a big push for a third round of stimulus payments. But the amount and eligibility rules for your third stimulus check could be dif…
January 12, 2021
Biden Calls for $1,400 Payments as Part of $1.9 Trillion Relief Package
Coronavirus and Your Money

Biden Calls for $1,400 Payments as Part of $1.9 Trillion Relief Package

Under Biden's plan for a third stimulus check, the $600 second-round stimulus checks would be increased to $2,000.
January 14, 2021

Recommended

Is the Stock Market Closed on MLK Day?
Markets

Is the Stock Market Closed on MLK Day?

Both the stock markets and bond markets will have Monday off as the nation honors civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
January 16, 2021
5 Danger Signs That You’re an ‘Immature’ Investor
investing

5 Danger Signs That You’re an ‘Immature’ Investor

To make the most of your investments, you need to think about them in the right way. Investing immaturity can hold you back from reaching the next lev…
January 11, 2021
James K. Glassman’s Stock Picks for 2021
Kiplinger's Investing Outlook

James K. Glassman’s Stock Picks for 2021

Kiplinger columnist James K. Glassman has been picking 10 stocks a year for decades now. We talk about what’s on his 2021 list, and how previous picks…
January 7, 2021
3 Bargain Stocks for 2021
investing

3 Bargain Stocks for 2021

Finding bargains in the stock market is never easy. But here are three stocks that got beaten up last year and I like for 2021.
January 5, 2021