Considering the
world-wide impact of the book 'Capital
in the 21st Century', by French economist Thomas Piketty, and its meaning for social priorities and goals, I
am pleased to send you my attached evaluation of this book. I hope this will
inspire your reflections about the moments we are going through. Kind regards,
Ronaldo Campos Carneiro – June 2014
Brasília - DF -
Brasil
About Piketty’s Book on Capital -
The Answer of a convinced Liberal
After fifteen
years of research (1998-2013) aimed at understanding the historical dynamics of
income and wealth in around 20 countries, mainly in the last 200 years, analysing
remarkable facts about humanity such as the industrial revolution, world
conflicts and economic crises, using and harmonizing data broadly accepted by
credible institutions like the World Bank, the UN and the IMF, this French
Professor at the Paris School of Economics, Thomas Piketty, aged 43, came to the conclusion that:
Capitalism, or what is left of it, just as it is now put in practice or crony
capitalism is heavily concentrating
income and wealth, in a process where the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer. Estimates for the XXI
century are alarming and define human coexistence as unfeasible under the rules
prevailing nowadays.
The current market competition is like an
athletic race in which some are well fed and have access to health assistance
and education, whereas crowds of
excluded are left far behind: the minimally decent atitude is to place them
on the same starting line or to equal
their opportunities at the beginning of the race.
“The 85 richest people in
the world, who could fit into a single London double-decker, control as much
wealth as the poorest half of the global population– that is 3.5 billion
people”.
“Strong inequality is corrosive of growth; it
is corrosive for society. I believe that
economists and politicians ignored inequality for too long.” (Christine Lagarde, Executive Director
of the International Monetary Fund)
I personally
think that these conclusions are irrefutable. No scholar will, after Piketty’s
research, ignore the enormous social exclusion generated by capitalism, or the
urgent need of actions to revert this dramatic situation. Inequality is
complicating the market economy. One must never forget that the economy depends
on supply and demand – it is useless to have supply facing a reduction in
demand, or vice-versa. No one, but a liberal dreamer, can imagine that the
economy will operate with supply only! Economics
is a science where agents are regulated by the inexorable law of supply and
demand. Politics is an art where the human will prevails. This is the
reason why they cannot blend: economics and politics have diferent natures.
My complete
agreement with Piketty’s conclusions also take me to a complete disagreement with his recommendations of a progressive tax and
a global tax on wealth. This would
be a shortcut to hell: it would mean more government, bureaucracy, war,
corruption or, in the economic view, it would transfer assets from the domain
of supply and demand to the changing human will of bureaucrats and politicians
– an antechamber to hell. Nothing is more predatory than the action of
governments in the economy – indebtedness is what governments know how to do,
and they do it unreservedly.
“Deficits mean future tax increases, nothing
less. The increase of deficits must be
seen as a tax on future generations, and the politicians who create
deficits should be judged as tax generators”. (Ron Paul, former US Senator – Republican).
Our generation
has been the victim of decisions from past generations, that increased
indebtedness, just like future generations will have to pay for the
inconsequence of our own generation, that expanded those debts even further. The European discussion about austerity or
Keynesian stimuli mean to penalize our generation or our descendants. The
problem is that policy makers search immediate applause, transfering the
solution of structural problems to the future. These are inconsequent acts,
showing no concern with future generations.
“Do not forget that I have found out that more
than ninety percent of all the national deficits, from 1921 to 1939, were
caused by the payment of past, present and future wars” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
“People do not
make war. It is the governments that make it” (Ronald Reagan)
I would go back
to the time of the American Revolution – “You
will never strengthen the weak by weakening the strong” – and to the
moments when the French Revolution was promising “liberty, fraternity and equality”.
Inequality of opportunities in human coexistence
has been generating the most terrible process of domination and human bondage:
the dictatorship of bureaucracy. The enormous amount of financial resources under the power of the
State, to be allocated by acts of human will, stimulates an unbridled race of
unscrupulous politicians in search of power at any cost; “They do not disdain, in certain
cases, to associate with cheating, fraud and corruption”, to use the words of Vilfredo Pareto.
It would be very
efficient and useful if economic policymakers became convinced that applying more measures under the same
keynesian references they would come to the same results. We must migrate to another reference frame if
we wish to improve our development process.
Economic rulers
must be aware of the fact that: “If they
do only what they have always done, they will end up having what they always
had”. Piketty’s proposition, however, is for more of the same, and it would
certainly lead to poor results.
The relation
between income and wealth is like a river flowing to a dam, where income is the
variable of flow or the fluidity of the river, and wealth is the variable of
stock or the accumulation in the dam. They both have the same nature, because
wealth is no more than accumulated labour, and only labour can generate wealth.
Piketty proved that there are some who harvest without planting, or who
generate wealth with the labour of others; when the rate of return on capital
is higher than the rate of economic progress, it results in predatory
accumulation. This is the patrimonialist economy, that produces income from
inherited family properties or from political connections: to be a friend of
the king produces more than merit or competence. It would be risible, were it not tragic, to imagine that the control of
financial flows (currency, exchange and credit)
can generate development, as suggested by Keynes. Only productive
labour can generate capital.
“Labor exists before, and is independent from
capital. Capital is just the fruit of labor and it would never exist without
the previous existence of labor. Labor
is superior to capital, and deserves much more consideration.”
This truth
expressed by Abraham Lincoln must be
recognized by all the zombies who are wandering, lost and disconnected from the
basic concepts of economics.
One must not
criticize without a corresponding proposition. The solution is not among the
tools of economic theory, but in the scope of politics, by means of a broad,
full and true agreement around a new Social Pact, in which nutrition, health and education will become a responsibility of the
private productive process, after the corresponding reduction of taxes by the
government, who will also reduce its interference in the economy. Instead of transferring resources from the
rich to the poor, this pact will equal opportunities concerning nutrition,
health care and education. I do not
mean philanthropy, but a new concept of human labor as a process of
transformation of human energy in physical or intelectual energy. This would
replace the changing logic of ideas –ideology- by the invariable logic of life
– biology. Of course, entrepreneurs will not act out of philanthropy: full productive labor will be the broker of
this agreement of wills.
This idea is perfectly simple: Piketty proved
that after centuries of distributive measures in all countries, in which
resources were transferred from the rich to the poor, the result was more social
exclusion.
To prohibit
wealth with a ceiling on income, as Piketty proposes, means to weaken the
strong to strengthen the weak. Better
would be, instead of a ceiling on income, to establish a groundfloor, so as to
permit wealth and prohibit poverty, in an open system that would open the
pressure cooker after the progressive dissipation of pressure.
Let us equal, for all, the access to
nutrition, health care and education, and liberate all the tools and values of
the market economy.
It was these values that made the West
prosperous since the XIX Century and their efficiency has been confirmed.
Instead of
terming this my proposition utopic, theoretical or unfeasible, one must keep in
mind that the complete liberation of
prices and wages will lead us to full productive labour, that is: salaries will
be ascending – there will be no need to establish a minimum wage – imagine
the Industrial Revolution, at the beginning of the XIX Century.
“Governamental institutions:
a) protect the powerful and interest groups;
b) generate hostility, corruption and
hopelessness;
c) hinder prosperity; and
d) repress free expression and the
opportunities of individuals”. (IMB -
Mises Institute).
I offer, below, some challenges in the scope
of this proposition, for the reader to ponder:
1) the agricultural sector and the reversion
of migration to the cities;
2) health care, education and the power in
the hands of the private sector; profit linked to people health.
3) the financial sector and
its incapability in the purchase and sale of papers having monetary
expression.; Christine Lagarde: “crisis has prompted a major
course correction—with the understanding that the true role of the financial
sector is to serve, not to rule, the economy.
As Winston Churchill
once remarked, “I would rather see finance less proud and industry more
content”.
4) the political area and the prevention of
speculation when resources are reduced.
Finally: In a Soccer World Cup or in the Olympic Games, just imagine how the
competition would happen if political or bureaucratic influences were present
in the choice of teams or in the rules of the games!
“In Hell, the hottest places are reserved for
those who chose neutrality in times of crisis’. (Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)
Lets learn with the best lessons of Von Mises:
· If
history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is
inextricably linked with civilization.
· Those who are asking for more
government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less
freedom.
· Governments become liberal only
when forced to by the citizens.
· Both force and money are impotent against ideas.
“We need not just a new
war on poverty but a war to protect the middle class. Solutions to these
problems do not have to be newfangled. Far from it. Making markets act like markets would be a good place to start. We
must end the rent-seeking society we have gravitated toward, in which the
wealthy obtain profits by manipulating the system.
The problem of
inequality is not so much a matter of technical economics. It’s really a
problem of practical politics. Ensuring that those at the top pay their fair
share of taxes — ending the special privileges of speculators, corporations and
the rich — is both pragmatic and fair. We are not embracing a politics of envy
if we reverse a politics of greed. Inequality
is not just about the top marginal tax rate but also about our children’s
access to food and the right to justice for all. If we spent more on
education, health and infrastructure, we would strengthen our economy, now and
in the future. Just because you’ve heard it before doesn’t mean we
shouldn’t try it again.
Widening and
deepening inequality is not driven by immutable economic laws, but by laws we
have written ourselves”.
Conference on Inclusive Capitalism
By Christine Lagarde
Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
London, May 27, 2014
Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
London, May 27, 2014
“A greater concentration of
wealth could—if unchecked—even undermine the principles of meritocracy and democracy.
It could undermine the principle of equal rights proclaimed in the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Pope Francis recently put this in stark terms when he
called increasing inequality “the root of social evil”.
It is therefore not
surprising that IMF research—which looked at 173 countries over the last 50
years—found that more unequal countries tend to have lower and less durable
economic growth”.
Best wishes,
Ronaldo Campos Carneiro – June 2014
To understand Piketty’s book:
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 - Paris School of Economics
CUNY debate with outstanding thinkers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heOVJM2JZxI&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs
Skidelsky’s blog
–
“Too Much”:
Special Thomas Piketty issue (26 May – Sam Pizzigati
John Weeks – “Why
is ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ (C21C) Such a Success”? 30 May 2014
Debate Piketty
and Senator Elizabeth Warren
I also suggest
reading the texts on this subject by:
David Harvey
(“Afterthoughts on Piketty’s Capital”), plus Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrick, Joseph
Stiglitz, Lawrence Summers, Robert Solow, James Galbraith.
---------------------------------------
From: Thomas
Piketty
Date: 2014-06-13 3:37 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE : Piketty’s Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Date: 2014-06-13 3:37 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE : Piketty’s Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Thanks Ronaldo, I
appreciate it. Best, Thomas
__________________
Thomas Piketty
Ecole d'Economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics
Page personnelle : http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/
Thomas Piketty
Ecole d'Economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics
Page personnelle : http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/
From: Thomas
Piketty
Date: 2014-07-02 7:38 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced liberal
To: Ronaldo Carneiro
Date: 2014-07-02 7:38 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced liberal
To: Ronaldo Carneiro
Thanks Ronaldo, this is a very interesting reaction! Best, Thomas
_______________
Thomas Piketty
Ecole d'Economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hjmelchiori@gmail.com
Creo que la diferencias comienzan en los tres
primeros años de vida al no tener nivelado el alimento, ya que el intelecto se
relaciona con la primera capacidad de ingesta, luego ya es tarde.
CREO QUE LA IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDADES DEBE NACER
ALLÍ, DESPUÉS MISMA EDUCACION Y MISMA INSTRUCCIÓN, LA EDUCACION SE DA EN EL
HOGAR, PERO SI TENEMOS PADRES NO EDUCADOS, QUE A SU VEZ SON HIJOS DE OTROS
PADRES NO EDUCADOS , VAMOS PEOR.
POR ULTIMO LA INSTRUCCIÓN SE DA EN LOS COLEGIOS
QUE DEBERÍAN DAR LAS MISMAS POSIBILIDADAES PARA TODOS, CON ESAS TRES COSAS
ARRANCAMOS A UN FUTURO MEJOR,
ES MI PERSONAL OPINIÓN QUE NO TIENE PORQUE SER
NADA MAS QUE MI VERDAD, QUE ES ABSOLUTA SOLO PARA MÍ, PERO TODOS TIENEN EL DERECHO
A TENER SUS VERDADES PROPIAS Y PARA ELLOS SERÁN VERDADES ABSOLUTAS TAMBIÉN,
LO QUE HACE FALTA ES CONCORDAR PARTE DE LAS
OPINIONES DE UN GRAN NÚMERO DE PERSONAS DISPUESTAS A TRABAJAR PERO QUE SABEN
QUE ELLOS NO VERÁN LOS FRUTOS,
ESO ES PARA LAS GENERACIONES VENIDERAS
"SI TODOS CUMPLIERAMOS CON NUESTROS DEBERES
HABRIA MENOS PERSONAS RECLAMANDO POR SUS DERECHOS" GHANDI DIXIT.
ATTE. MELCHIORI.
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
From: Pedro Schwartz
|
Dear Mr.
Carneiro:
I find what you say complicated and will think on it. However, I think Piketty is wrong in his forecast of the future of capitalism.
Sincerely
I find what you say complicated and will think on it. However, I think Piketty is wrong in his forecast of the future of capitalism.
Sincerely
---------------------------------------------
Dhian Chand
june.14,2014
2006-7 DG - 3080 District
Shimla Him. Pr. India
Dear PDG Ronaldo Carneiro,
Thank you for
sending me your evaluation of Piketty's Capital - the answer of a convinced
liberal. You have motivate me to buy and read his book "Capital in the
21st Century". You have rightly concluded in the last four points, the
people responsible to create balance in the social economic status in the
society. However, the question remained unanswered that politicians and
bureaucrats have no limit for their greed for money and power which ultimately
encourage corruption in the country and war between neighbouring countries. If
we are able to influence these two category of our society the balance in
distribution of economic growth will be maintained and there will be no poor in
the modern world which due to technology evolution has become one a global
village.
Regards
Dhian Chand
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
From: Anthony
de Jasay
|
Dear Mr.
Carneiro,
I have had your letter of 13 June read to me (as you may know I have lost my eyesight long ago). I agree with most of it , but as you must know very well it is not by condemning politics and politicians for being toxic and nasty that thay will become any less harmful. They are a probably inevitable product of one man, one vote.
Yous sincerely,
Anthony de Jasay
I have had your letter of 13 June read to me (as you may know I have lost my eyesight long ago). I agree with most of it , but as you must know very well it is not by condemning politics and politicians for being toxic and nasty that thay will become any less harmful. They are a probably inevitable product of one man, one vote.
Yous sincerely,
Anthony de Jasay
-----------------------------------------------
From: Stephen
Raudenbush - 13/6/14
sraudenb@uchicago.edu
Dear Ronald
Thanks for sending this. I have admired your work and made very good use of your book with James Heckman on inequality.
I do have a few questions
* Why are key elements of Sen's "human development index" so much better in the European social democracies than in the US?
* Why have the countries that employed a Keynesian stimulus done so much better during the recession than countries that used the recession to reduce government spending?
I believe you have offered a false choice between heavy government involvement and light government involvement. All sides are competing to use the government to support their own special interest. If the government does not intervene to insure child care, education, health, housing, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and social security for the elderly, and protect the environment, the result will not be a utopian laissez faire society. Instead, government resources will be directed entirely to prop up agri-business, build roads to support real estate developers, save failing banks, generate unneeded contracts for lobbyists, etc. In sum, we will have neither social democracy nor laissez faire but rather socialism for the rich, which is pretty much what the US has now.
Why did you not comment on our extraordinarily corrupt political system in which running for low level offices now requires millions of dollars? Where huge firms literally dictate legislation to the office holders they have bankrolled?
I would propose a government role that does the good things I mentioned above while aggressively intervening against oligopoly and favoritism to insure competition in the market place. The government can be a friend of the free market and a friend of meritocracy while insuring basic necessities, particularly for the children and the elderly, and supporting human capital development.
Sincerely
Steve Raudenbush
Thanks for sending this. I have admired your work and made very good use of your book with James Heckman on inequality.
I do have a few questions
* Why are key elements of Sen's "human development index" so much better in the European social democracies than in the US?
* Why have the countries that employed a Keynesian stimulus done so much better during the recession than countries that used the recession to reduce government spending?
I believe you have offered a false choice between heavy government involvement and light government involvement. All sides are competing to use the government to support their own special interest. If the government does not intervene to insure child care, education, health, housing, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and social security for the elderly, and protect the environment, the result will not be a utopian laissez faire society. Instead, government resources will be directed entirely to prop up agri-business, build roads to support real estate developers, save failing banks, generate unneeded contracts for lobbyists, etc. In sum, we will have neither social democracy nor laissez faire but rather socialism for the rich, which is pretty much what the US has now.
Why did you not comment on our extraordinarily corrupt political system in which running for low level offices now requires millions of dollars? Where huge firms literally dictate legislation to the office holders they have bankrolled?
I would propose a government role that does the good things I mentioned above while aggressively intervening against oligopoly and favoritism to insure competition in the market place. The government can be a friend of the free market and a friend of meritocracy while insuring basic necessities, particularly for the children and the elderly, and supporting human capital development.
Sincerely
Steve Raudenbush
----------------------------------------------------------
From: William
Anderson - 13/6/14
banderson@frostburg.edu
If these points
are true, then are you saying that the vast amount of people are materially
poorer than they were, say, in 1980? That they have fewer goods and services
available to them now than they had then?
It seems to me
that the theories depend upon (1) homogeneous capital (capital as a lump of
stuff that is useful primarily for how much is spent in creating and
accumulating it), and (2) underconsumption. We have been getting
underconsumption theories at least since “Fable of the Bees.”
Now, we do have a
lot of what is called crony capitalism today, in which owners of capital,
through political alliances, are able to force resources into a direction that
would not be profitable (or would be less profitable) without the government
intervention. However, from what I can tell, Piketty is not so worried about
this development. Piketty would prefer lots of people to be poor to make Bill
Gates and a few other people pay more taxes.
If Piketty’s
thesis is true, then the vast majority of people today are poorer than were the
people of the early 1800s, when the development of large-scale capital really
took off in Great Britain and in Europe. Are you prepared to say that? Think of
the logic of his thesis; are you prepared to claim that a larger percentage of
people are poor today (and living in worse conditions) than were people of the
early 1800s?
Then, to follow
Piketty’s logic, the bifurcated returns to capital (versus ordinary income
growth) would have to be consistent from the very start. Thus, you are having
to claim that the poor today are poorer than the vast majority of people in the
early 19th Century. Can you empirically justify that statement?
-----------------------------------------------
From: g.reisman@capitalism.net
- 13/6/14
Dear Mr.
Carneiro:
Thank you for
your review of Piketty.
Attached, please
find a copy of my review of him, which I’ve just posted to my blog.
Sincerely,
George Reisman
--------------------------------------------
From: studiosarpietro@gmail.com
june, 16, 2014
Dear fellow
Rotarian Ronaldo Carneiro,
thank you very
much. your thoughts on the book of Piketty are very interesting, especially in
this period we are going through.
I will continue
to reflect on this, and I will send it to my daughter who is studying
Economics.
Many greetings.
Salvatore
Sarpietro
2007-08 DG – 2110
District
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benegas-Lynch,
Jr., Alberto
National
Academy of Sciences, Argentina
abenegaslynch@yahoo.com –
june,20,2014
Dear Ronaldo Carneiro, thak you for sending your
papers that I will read with great interest. In the meanwhile, I copy one of my
weakly columns on the subject. Cordially, Alberto Benegas Lynch, Jr
------------------------------------------------------
jeffdeist@mises.org
- june,20,2014
Excellent, thank
you. Jeff
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Floy
Lilley
Date: 2014-06-20 17:29 GMT-03:00
Subject: Re: About Piketty
To: Ronaldo Carneiro
Date: 2014-06-20 17:29 GMT-03:00
Subject: Re: About Piketty
To: Ronaldo Carneiro
Hello Mr.
Carneiro,
Your enthusiasm for this project is palpable. That's a fine way to feel about whatever you do.
You embrace Piketty's work in ways that I do not. I do not find that he proves his thesis.
Thank you for having thought of me.
Best,
Floy Lilley
Your enthusiasm for this project is palpable. That's a fine way to feel about whatever you do.
You embrace Piketty's work in ways that I do not. I do not find that he proves his thesis.
Thank you for having thought of me.
Best,
Floy Lilley
---------------------------------------------
From: Rev.
Robert A. Sirico
Date: 2014-06-21 13:30 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Date: 2014-06-21 13:30 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Dear Ronaldo:
Your email arrive
just as I had begun reading Pikettey’s book Capital, so I shall now do so with
your critique in mind.
Many thanks,
Fr. Robert A.
Sirico,
President
The Acton
Institute
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary North
Date: 2014-06-23 9:02 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Date: 2014-06-23 9:02 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Don't start with Pikkety. Start woth Pareto: 1897
From: Jaana Woiceshyn
Date: 2014-07-11 1:29 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Why competition is good and regulation bad
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Date: 2014-07-11 1:29 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Why competition is good and regulation bad
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Thank
you, Ronaldo.—My silence does not imply anything but me being swamped and not
being able to find the time to correspond—sorry. I hope my life will get less
busy soon. But in general, I disagree with Piketty’s thesis. Inequality is a
non-issue! Regards, Jaana
From: Noam Chomsky
Date: 2014-07-11 1:56 GMT-03:00
Subject: Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced liberal
To: Ronaldo Carneiro
Date: 2014-07-11 1:56 GMT-03:00
Subject: Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced liberal
To: Ronaldo Carneiro
Thanks for sending. Hope to get to it soon.
From: Info
Date: 2014-07-18 5:41 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Inequalities
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Date: 2014-07-18 5:41 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Inequalities
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Hello,
Thank you so much for your email below.
Unfortunately, Profile books do not
accept unsolicited material. However, we do recommend the following websites as
industry standard for gaining a reputable agent as well as other tips for
publishing. Please do not pay an agent either – this is usually not a good
sign.
· Writers and Artists yearbook
· Preditors and editors
· Absolute write
We most certainly wish you the best
with getting published.
Kind regards,
Olu
*****************************************
Olu Ubadike
Olu Ubadike
Office Manager
Profile Books
3A Exmouth House
Pine Street
Exmouth Market
London
From: Ieva NAVICKAITĖ
Date: 2014-08-01 4:07 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Inequalities
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Date: 2014-08-01 4:07 GMT-03:00
Subject: RE: Inequalities
To: Ronaldo campos carneiro
Thank you for sharing, Ronaldo. It will be very
interesing to read your remarks on Piketty‘s book. Let‘s keep in touch.
Best wishes. Ieva
|
Christopher escreveu: "Thanx for the article. Thoughts. 1. Agree
that capitalism is well on the way to eating itself 2. Agree that war is a
major problem. Nation states have abrogated the right to billions of unprofitable
dollars. 3. Agree that answer is probably not a 'ceiling' but a 'floor' - in
other words, the tax system. If the 'haves' agree to pay generously, then the
problems you point out with health, education, etc. will disappear. The
problem occurs when the 'haves' think they own their money and try to hold it
all. Conclusion: a neat summary of the problem ;-)
Christopher"
|
------------------------------------------------------------
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário