I haven’t spent much time writing about Thomas Piketty’s inequality book for the simple reason that my goal is economic liberty, not equality.
That being said, I think that Piketty is fundamentally misguided even if the goal is helping the poor. Simply stated, long-run growth is the best way of reducing poverty and boosting living standards. Piketty, by contrast, focuses on redistribution – even though this would require punitive taxation, thus undermining growth and hurting the less fortunate.
This is very obvious when we look at economic performance in market-oriented nations and compare it to economic performance in countries where government plays a bigger role.
Most recently, I showed how Poland is out-pacing Ukraine.
I’ve compared South Korea and North Korea.
The data for Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela is very powerful.
I’ve shown how Singapore has eclipsed Jamaica.
And we can see that Hong Kong has caught upwith the United States.
As I often remark in my speeches, I’d much rather be a poor person in a jurisdiction such as Hong Kong or Singapore rather than in a “compassionate” country such as France.
France might give me lots of handouts, but I’d remain poor. In a free-market society, by contrast, I could climb out of poverty.
In Other News: Can We Ask Al Qaeda for a Refund on the Bowe Bergdahl Prisoner Swap? | Michael Schaus