French economist Thomas Piketty's new book challenges the belief that free markets will automatically produce extensive prosperity.Thomas Piketty www.cheapnbajerseysshop.us.com , the French economist who was one of those who popularised the idea of a privileged 1 per cent, rings this alarm in his new book: The US economy has started to decay aording to the ways of aristocratic Europe of the 19th century. Diligent work will be of less importance while inherited wealth will bee more desirable. The wealth of the few will undermine the foundations of democry.Capital in the 21st Century has captured great interest as US political leaders argue whether increasing ine gap is an issue that needs tion.The 700-page volu has been celebrated as one of the most important economic opuses in recent years, citing data from the past three hundred year to prove that the wealthy are hoarding more of an economy’s ine than before and that prevailing regulations will an that it will only grow.People who support this idea cite the book as evidence that the wealth disparity must be reduced. Critics, however Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale , reject the idea as being that of a left-wing ideologue.Last week, Piketty’s book climbed to the top of Amazon’s bestsellers.Unearthing information from 300 years of economic data, tax records, 19th-century novels and modern TV programs Cheap NBA Jerseys Online , Piketty questions the assumption that free markets automatically produce extensive wealth.On the contrary, he believes that the rich will bee richer and everyone else will have almost zero chance of catching up.Investnts in bonds, stocks, land and buildings -- the “capital referred to in his title – invariably grow more rapidly than the ines of the masses. By its fundantal nature Cheap NBA Jerseys , capitalism generates inequality and can undermine the stability of democries, Piketty argues.Economists used to view the thirty years after WW II as evidence of capitalism’s capity to create and distribute wealth. Piketty argues that the era was a historical eentricity produced by o world wars and the Great Depression decimating the wealth of the old establint. Piketty believes higher taxes on wealth can control the spread of inequality. Moreover, he thinks that college education for more people will arpen their skills through and could help reduce the effect of “inegalitarian spiral.During an interview with The Associated Press, Piketty, 42, talked on the “dangerous illusion of the ritocry, and his suggested solutions for controlling inequality.Here is an edited summary of the interview:What is the effect of a growing wealth disparity?The major concern for is tually the efficient functioning of our democratic institutions. It simply does not work well with an excessive form of oligarchy where 90 per cent of the wealth is owned by an extrely small class of people. The democratic model has always been seen to function within a moderate level of inequality. I believe one main reason why electoral democry thrived in 19th-century Arica better than 19th-century Europe is because you had greater distribution of wealth in Arica.Your research reveals that profits on investnts – capital – increase more rapidly than wages and economic growth. But many people are of the persuasion that greater inequality can help generate more growth.When inequality rehes an extre, it pletely stifles growth. There was extre inequality in the 19th-century and growth was markedly minimal. Because the rate of growth of productivity was only 1 to 1.5 per cent annually [in 19th-century Europe]#5# and it was below the rate of return to wealth, which averaged from 4 to 5 per cent, leading to huge inequality of wealth. We need to realize that innovation and growth alone are not sufficient to reduce the effects of the wealth gap.Are we on the path bk to the Gilded Age?No one can really be sure. The main point of the book is that we are inside a pilotless plane. We must find a natural procedure or thod that can assure us that we will find ourselves landing on a safe, aeptable level.Would the impt of wealth inequality matter if wages for the middle class were still increasing?There are o great forces that are pressing on the middle class from both sides. One is the increase of the pensation for the highest executives#6# which ans that the are of wages going to the middle and lower class is diminiing. That has been particularly true in the United States. The other force prevailing is that the are of a nation’s ine going to the workers tends to decrease when the are going to capital is growing.You consider ritocry a “dangerous illusion. That runs opposite the view of many people who believe the US economy works.Our modern democratic model is founded on the assumption that inequalities will be due to rit more than pure luck or inheritance. In so cases, ritocratic argunts are utilized by the winners of the ga to justify the value of unhampered inequality. I do not believe we can find any sound justification for giving people more than 100 tis the regular wage in order to produce highly-efficient managers.People in Europe and the US have a nostalgic view of the post-WWII era. We experienced expanding national prosperity that benefited the majority of people. Can we still get bk to that?It was in reality a transitory period because of the very exceptional conditions. Growth was considerably high, partly because of post-war reconstruction and population growth, as a rule#7# had been extrely large in the 20th century. This is certainly not an option for policymakers. The other main reason I think we ould not be nostalgic is that one of the reasons the inequalities were lower in the 1950s and 1960s is that the world wars decimated so of the inherited capital that was the cause of the previous inequality.Why do you think a wealth tax would dampen the destabilising effect of growing inequality?Instead of imposing a flat tax on real estate assets, you would impose a progressive tax on personal worth.