Thomas Piketty: New thoughts on capital in the twenty-first century

Prevodilac: Valentina Tahiri Lektor: Mile Živković

It's very nice to be here tonight.

Veoma je lepo biti ovde večeras.

So I've been working on the history of income

Izučavao sam istoriju prihoda

and wealth distribution for the past 15 years,

i raspodelu bogatstva, u poslednjih 15 godina,

and one of the interesting lessons

i jedna zanimljiva lekcija

coming from this historical evidence

zasnovana na istorijskim podacima

is indeed that, in the long run,

jeste da, zapravo, na duže staze,

there is a tendency for the rate of return of capital

postoji tendencija da stopa povratka kapitala

to exceed the economy's growth rate,

nadmaši stopu rasta ekonomije

and this tends to lead to high concentration of wealth.

i ovo dovodi do gomilanja imovine.

Not infinite concentration of wealth,

Ne gomilanja u nedogled,

but the higher the gap between r and g,

ali što je veća razdaljina između r i g,

the higher the level of inequality of wealth

to je veći stepen nejednakosti među imovinama,

towards which society tends to converge.

ka čemu društvo, izgleda, stremi.

So this is a key force that I'm going to talk about today,

Tako da, to je glavna sila o kojoj ću da govorim danas,

but let me say right away

ali samo da kažem odmah

that this is not the only important force

da ovo nije i jedina sila,

in the dynamics of income and wealth distribution,

u dinamici prihoda i raspodele bogatstva,

and there are many other forces that play

i da ima mnogih drugih sila koje igraju

an important role in the long-run dynamics

važne uloge u dugoročnoj dinamici prihoda

of income and wealth distribution.

i raspodeli bogatstva.

Also there is a lot of data

Takođe, postoji pregršt podataka

that still needs to be collected.

koje bi trebalo prikupiti.

We know a little bit more today

Znamo malo više danas,

than we used to know, but we still know too little,

nego što smo znali pre, ali, i dalje, suviše malo,

and certainly there are many different processes —

i sigurno ima puno različitih procesa -

economic, social, political —

ekonomskih, društvenih, političkih -

that need to be studied more.

koje bi trebalo više izučavati.

And so I'm going to focus today on this simple force,

Tako da ću ja danas da se držim ove jednostavne sile,

but that doesn't mean that other important forces

što ne znači da druge bitne sile

do not exist.

ne postoje.

So most of the data I'm going to present

Većina informacija koje ću izneti

comes from this database

dolazi iz baze podataka

that's available online:

koja je dostpuna onlajn:

the World Top Incomes Database.

svetska baza podataka o prihodima.

So this is the largest existing

Ovo je najveća postojeća

historical database on inequality,

istorijska baza podataka

o nejednakosti, i ovo dolazi

and this comes from the effort

od truda

of over 30 scholars from several dozen countries.

preko 30 učenjaka iz nekoliko desetina zemalja.

So let me show you a couple of facts

Dozvolite mi da vam pokažem par činjenica

coming from this database,

iz ove baze podataka,

and then we'll return to r bigger than g.

a onda se vraćamo na r koje je veće od g.

So fact number one is that there has been

Prva činjenica je da je bio veliki preokret

a big reversal in the ordering of income inequality

koji je otpočeo nastajanje nejednakosti u prihodima

between the United States and Europe

između Sjedinjenih Država i Evrope

over the past century.

u proteklom veku.

So back in 1900, 1910, income inequality was actually

Između 1900. i 1910. nejednakost prihoda je bila

much higher in Europe than in the United States,

veća u Evropi nego u Sjedinjenim Državama,

whereas today, it is a lot higher in the United States.

dok je danas, mnogo veća u Sjedinjenim Državama.

So let me be very clear:

Dopustite da razjasnim.

The main explanation for this is not r bigger than g.

Glavno objašnjenje za ovo nije r je veće od g.

It has more to do with changing supply and demand

Više je u vezi sa promenom zaliha i potražnje

for skill, the race between education and technology,

za veštinom, trkom između obrazovanja i tehnologije,

globalization, probably more unequal access

globalizacijom, verovatno više nejednakih pristupa

to skills in the U.S.,

veštinama u SAD-u,

where you have very good, very top universities

gde postoje vrlo dobre, visoke škole

but where the bottom part of the educational system

ali gde niži obrazovni sistem

is not as good,

nije tako dobar,

so very unequal access to skills,

time vidite, izuzetno nejednak pristup veštinama.

and also an unprecedented rise

I neprikosnoven rast

of top managerial compensation of the United States,

vrhunskih menadžerskih kompenzacija u Sjedinjenim Državama,

which is difficult to account for just on the basis of education.

o kojima je teže govoriti, samo sa stanovišta obrazovanja.

So there is more going on here,

Tu se mnogo više dešava,

but I'm not going to talk too much about this today,

ali neću puno govoriti o tome danas,

because I want to focus on wealth inequality.

jer želim da se skoncentrišem na imovinsku nejednakost.

So let me just show you a very simple indicator

Dopustite da vam pokažem veoma jednostavan indikator

about the income inequality part.

o imovinskoj nejednakosti.

So this is the share of total income

Ovaj deo je udeo ukupnog prihoda

going to the top 10 percent.

koji ide u gornjih 10 procenata.

So you can see that one century ago,

Tako da možete videti da je jedan vek ranije,

it was between 45 and 50 percent in Europe

bilo između 45 i 50 procenata u Evropi,

and a little bit above 40 percent in the U.S.,

i malo više od 40 procenata u SAD-u,

so there was more inequality in Europe.

tako da je bilo više nejednakosti u Evropi.

Then there was a sharp decline

Onda je došlo do naglog pada

during the first half of the 20th century,

tokom prve polovine 20. veka,

and in the recent decade, you can see that

a u skorijoj deceniji, možete videti

the U.S. has become more unequal than Europe,

da su SAD imale veću nejednakost od Evrope,

and this is the first fact I just talked about.

i ovo je prva činjenica o kojoj sam pričao.

Now, the second fact is more about wealth inequality,

Sledeća činjenica se više tiče imovinske nejednakosti,

and here the central fact is that wealth inequality

a glavna činjenica je da je imovinska nejednakost,

is always a lot higher than income inequality,

znatno veća od nejednakosti u prihodima,

and also that wealth inequality,

takođe da imovinska nejednakost,

although it has also increased in recent decades,

iako raste proteklih decenija,

is still less extreme today

nije mnogo ekstremnija danas,

than what it was a century ago,

nego što je bila vek ranije.

although the total quantity of wealth

Iako je ukupna količina imovine

relative to income has now recovered

relevantne za prihod, sada obnovljena

from the very large shocks

od velikih šokova

caused by World War I, the Great Depression,

Prvog svetskog rata, ekonomske krize,

World War II.

Drugog svetskog rata.

So let me show you two graphs

Pokazaću vam dva grafika

illustrating fact number two and fact number three.

koja prikazuju činjenicu broj dva i činjenicu broj tri.

So first, if you look at the level of wealth inequality,

Ako pogledate nivo imovinske nejednakosti,

this is the share of total wealth

ovo je udeo ukupne imovine

going to the top 10 percent of wealth holders,

koji ide u gornjih 10 procenata imovinskih vlasnika.

so you can see the same kind of reversal

Time možete primetiti istu vrstu preokreta

between the U.S. and Europe that we had before

između SAD-a i Evrope, koju smo i ranije imali

for income inequality.

kod nejednakosti prihoda.

So wealth concentration was higher

Gomilanje imovine je bilo veće

in Europe than in the U.S. a century ago,

u Evropi nego u SAD-u, vek ranije,

and now it is the opposite.

a sada je obratno.

But you can also show two things:

Ali možemo pokazati još dve stvari:

First, the general level of wealth inequality

prvo, nivo imovinske nejednakosti, generalno

is always higher than income inequality.

uvek biva veći od nejednakosti u prihodima.

So remember, for income inequality,

Zapamtite, za nejednakost u prihodima,

the share going to the top 10 percent

udeo koji ide u gornjih 10 procenata

was between 30 and 50 percent of total income,

je bio između 30 i 50 procenata ukupnih prihoda,

whereas for wealth, the share is always

dok je kod imovine, udeo uvek

between 60 and 90 percent.

između 60 i 90 procenata.

Okay, so that's fact number one,

Okej, to je činjenica broj jedan

and that's very important for what follows.

koja je jako važna zbog onog što sledi.

Wealth concentration is always

Gomilanje imovine je uvek

a lot higher than income concentration.

mnogo veće od gomilanja prihoda.

Fact number two is that the rise

Činjenica broj dva je da je porast

in wealth inequality in recent decades

imovinske nejednakosti proteklih decenija

is still not enough to get us back to 1910.

nedovoljan da nas vrati u 1910.

So the big difference today,

Tako da, danas postoji velika razlika,

wealth inequality is still very large,

imovinska nejednakost je, opet, pozamašna

with 60, 70 percent of total wealth for the top 10,

sa 60, 70 procenata od ukupne imovine u top 10 procenata,

but the good news is that it's actually

ali su zapravo dobre vesti

better than one century ago,

da je bolje nego vek ranije,

where you had 90 percent in Europe going to the top 10.

gde 90 procenata, u Evropi, odlazi u top 10.

So today what you have

Danas imamo,

is what I call the middle 40 percent,

ono što ja nazivam srednjih 40 procenata,

the people who are not in the top 10

ljudi koji nisu u top 10

and who are not in the bottom 50,

i koji nisu u poslednjih 50,

and what you can view as the wealth middle class

koje možete gledati kao imovinsku srednju klasu

that owns 20 to 30 percent

koja ima 20 do 30 procenata

of total wealth, national wealth,

ukupne imovine, državne imovine,

whereas they used to be poor, a century ago,

a bili su siromašni vek ranije,

when there was basically no wealth middle class.

praktično je bila srednja klasa bez imovine.

So this is an important change,

Ovo je bitna promena,

and it's interesting to see that wealth inequality

i zanimljivo je videti da imovinska nejednakost

has not fully recovered to pre-World War I levels,

nije potpuno povraćena u stanje pre Prvog svetskog rata,

although the total quantity of wealth has recovered.

iako je ukupna količina imovine povraćena.

Okay? So this is the total value

Okej? Ovo je ukupna vrednost

of wealth relative to income,

imovine u odnosu na prihode,

and you can see that in particular in Europe,

i možete primetiti da smo, naročito u Evropi,

we are almost back to the pre-World War I level.

blizu perioda pre Prvog svetskog rata.

So there are really two

Tako da, zapravo, postoje dva

different parts of the story here.

različita dela priče.

One has to do with

Jedan ima veze

the total quantity of wealth that we accumulate,

sa ukupnom količinom imovine koju akumuliramo,

and there is nothing bad per se, of course,

i nema ničeg izričito lošeg

in accumulating a lot of wealth,

u tome da se imovina akumulira,

and in particular if it is more diffuse

pogotovo ako je rasprostranjena,

and less concentrated.

a ne nagomilavana.

So what we really want to focus on

Ono na šta ćemo se stvarno skoncentrisati

is the long-run evolution of wealth inequality,

je dugoročna evolucija imovinske nejednakosti,

and what's going to happen in the future.

i ono što će se u budućnosti dešavati.

How can we account for the fact that

Kako možemo objasniti činjenicu

until World War I, wealth inequality was so high

da je u periodu Prvog svetskog rata, nejednakost bila toliko velika

and, if anything, was rising to even higher levels,

i, ako ništa drugo, rasla je do veće nejednakosti,

and how can we think about the future?

i kako možemo razmišljati o budućnosti?

So let me come to some of the explanations

Dopustite da dođem do nekih objašnjenja

and speculations about the future.

i nagađanja, vezanih za budućnost.

Let me first say that

Prvo, da samo kažem

probably the best model to explain

da je verovatno najbolji primer toga

why wealth is so much

zašto je imovina toliko

more concentrated than income

nagomilavana u odnosu na prihode,

is a dynamic, dynastic model

zapravo dinamičan, dinastijski primer

where individuals have a long horizon

gde pojedinac ima širok vidokrug

and accumulate wealth for all sorts of reasons.

i gomila imovinu iz raznih razloga.

If people were accumulating wealth

Da ljudi gomilaju imovinu,

only for life cycle reasons,

samo zbog životnog veka,

you know, to be able to consume

razumete,

da mogu da uživaju imovinu

when they are old,

i kad ostare,

then the level of wealth inequality

onda bi nivo imovinske nejednakosti

should be more or less in line

trebalo da bude manje više jednak

with the level of income inequality.

nivou nejednakosti u prihodima.

But it will be very difficult to explain

Ali bi bilo jako teško objasniti

why you have so much more wealth inequality

zašto postoji više imovinske nejednakosti

than income inequality

od nejednakosti u prihodima,

with a pure life cycle model,

primerom životnog veka.

so you need a story

Prema tome, treba vam priča

where people also care

gde je ljudima takođe stalo

about wealth accumulation for other reasons.

do akumulacije imovine, ali iz drugih razloga.

So typically, they want to transmit

Obično žele preneti

wealth to the next generation, to their children,

imovinu sledećoj generaciji, svojoj deci,

or sometimes they want to accumulate wealth

ponekad žele akumulirati imovinu

because of the prestige, the power that goes with wealth.

zbog prestiža i moći koja dolazi uz to.

So there must be other reasons

Moraju postojati drugi razlozi

for accumulating wealth than just life cycle

za akumulaciju imovine van životnog veka

to explain what we see in the data.

kako bismo objasnili to što vidimo u podacima.

Now, in a large class of dynamic models

E sada, u velikoj klasi dinamičkih primera

of wealth accumulation

akumulacije imovine

with such dynastic motive for accumulating wealth,

sa takvim dinastijskim razlozima za akumulaciju imovine,

you will have all sorts of random,

imaćete razne

multiplicative shocks.

uvećavane šokove.

So for instance, some families

Na primer, neke porodice

have a very large number of children,

imaju velik broj dece,

so the wealth will be divided.

pa će imovina biti podeljena.

Some families have fewer children.

Neke porodice imaju manji broj dece.

You also have shocks to rates of return.

Postoji i šok na stopu povraćaja.

Some families make huge capital gains.

Neke porodice imaju ogroman priliv kapitala.

Some made bad investments.

Neke su imale loša ulaganja.

So you will always have some mobility

Uvek ćete imati neku vrstu mobilnosti

in the wealth process.

u tom imovinskom procesu.

Some people will move up, some people will move down.

Neki ljudi će se uzdići, neki će se spustiti.

The important point is that,

Značajna poenta jeste da

in any such model,

u kom god primeru,

for a given variance of such shocks,

za datu varijaciju tih šokova,

the equilibrium level of wealth inequality

balans nivoa imovinske nejednakosti

will be a steeply rising function of r minus g.

će biti visoko rastuća funkcija r minus g.

And intuitively, the reason why the difference

Intuitivno, razlog za razlike

between the rate of return to wealth

između stope povraćaja imovine

and the growth rate is important

i razvojne stope, koja je značajna,

is that initial wealth inequalities

je da će prvobitne imovinske nejednakosti

will be amplified at a faster pace

biti uvećavane bržim tempom

with a bigger r minus g.

sa većim r minus g.

So take a simple example,

Uzmite jednostavan primer,

with r equals five percent and g equals one percent,

kada je r jednako 5 procenata, a g je jednako 1 procenat,

wealth holders only need to reinvest

imovinski vlasnici samo moraju opet uložiti

one fifth of their capital income to ensure

jednu petinu svog kapitala da bi osigurali

that their wealth rises as fast

da će im imovina rasti istom brzinom

as the size of the economy.

kojom raste i ekonomija.

So this makes it easier

Ovo olakšava

to build and perpetuate large fortunes

građenje i očuvanje velikih imućstava,

because you can consume four fifths,

jer možete koristiti četiri petine,

assuming zero tax,

sa pretpostavkom - bez poreza,

and you can just reinvest one fifth.

i nanovo uložite preostalu petinu.

So of course some families will consume more than that,

Naravno, neke porodice će iskoristiti više od toga,

some will consume less, so there will be

a neke manje, pa će biti

some mobility in the distribution,

neke mobilnosti u distribuciji,

but on average, they only need to reinvest one fifth,

ali, u proseku, samo moraju uložiti jednu petinu,

so this allows high wealth inequalities to be sustained.

što omogućava održavanje velike imovinske nejednakosti.

Now, you should not be surprised

Nemojte biti iznenađeni

by the statement that r can be bigger than g forever,

izjavom da r može biti veće od g zauvek,

because, in fact, this is what happened

jer se upravo to dešavalo

during most of the history of mankind.

tokom istorije čovečanstva.

And this was in a way very obvious to everybody

I ovo je, na neki način, bilo svima očito,

for a simple reason, which is that growth

iz prostog razloga, što je rast

was close to zero percent

bio približno nula procenata

during most of the history of mankind.

kroz veći deo istorije čovečanstva.

Growth was maybe 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 percent,

Rast je možda bio 0,1 - 0,2 - 0,3 procenata,

but very slow growth of population

zbog sporog rasta populacije

and output per capita,

i učinka po glavi,

whereas the rate of return on capital

dok stopa povraćaja kapitala,

of course was not zero percent.

naravno, nije bila nula procenata.

It was, for land assets, which was

Za zemljišna dobra, koja su bila

the traditional form

tradicionalni oblik

of assets in preindustrial societies,

dobara u društvima pre industrijalizacije,

it was typically five percent.

obično je bilo 5 procenata.

Any reader of Jane Austen would know that.

Svaka osoba koja je čitala Džejn Ostin će ovo znati.

If you want an annual income of 1,000 pounds,

Ako želite godišnji prihod od 1000 funti

you should have a capital value

bila bi vam potrebna vrednost kapitala

of 20,000 pounds so that

od 20 000 funti, tako bi

five percent of 20,000 is 1,000.

pet procenata od 20 000 bilo 1000.

And in a way, this was

Na neki način, ovo je bila

the very foundation of society,

sama osnova društva,

because r bigger than g

jer kad je r veće od g,

was what allowed holders of wealth and assets

onda su vlasnici imovine i dobara mogli

to live off their capital income

da žive od prihoda od kapitala

and to do something else in life

i da rade nešto drugo u životu

than just to care about their own survival.

nego da samo brinu o sopstvenom preživljavanju.

Now, one important conclusion

Bitan zaključak

of my historical research is that

mog istorijskog istraživanja je

modern industrial growth did not change

da savremeni rast industrije ne menja

this basic fact as much as one might have expected.

osnovnu činjenicu, kako bi neki očekivali.

Of course, the growth rate

Naravno, stopa rasta

following the Industrial Revolution

je nakon industrijske revolucije

rose, typically from zero to one to two percent,

porasla, obično, od nula do dva procenta,

but at the same time, the rate of return

ali je istovremeno, stopa povraćaja kapitala,

to capital also rose

je takođe rasla

so that the gap between the two

tako da se razlika između dve stope

did not really change.

nije mnogo menjala.

So during the 20th century,

Tokom 20. veka

you had a very unique combination of events.

imali smo vrlo specifičan tok dešavanja.

First, a very low rate of return

Prvo, vrlo niska stopa povraćaja

due to the 1914 and 1945 war shocks,

uzrokovana šokovima iz ratova 1914. i 1945.

destruction of wealth, inflation,

uništavanje imovine, inflacija,

bankruptcy during the Great Depression,

bankrot tokom ekonomske krize,

and all of this reduced

sve ovo je svelo

the private rate of return to wealth

privatnu stopu povraćaja imovine

to unusually low levels

na začuđujuće nizak nivo

between 1914 and 1945.

između 1914. i 1945.

And then, in the postwar period,

I onda, u posleratnom periodu,

you had unusually high growth rate,

postojala je začuđujuće visoka stopa rasta,

partly due to the reconstruction.

uzrokovana, delom, zbog rekonstrukcije.

You know, in Germany, in France, in Japan,

Znate, u Nemačkoj, Francuskoj, Japanu,

you had five percent growth rate

stopa rasta je bila 5 procenata

between 1950 and 1980

između 1950. i 1980,

largely due to reconstruction,

većim delom zbog rekonstrukcije,

and also due to very large demographic growth,

takođe, zbog vrlo visokog rasta populacije,

the Baby Boom Cohort effect.

efekta Bebi-bum generacija.

Now, apparently that's not going to last for very long,

Danas, to neće moći dugo da potraje

or at least the population growth

ili bi rast populacije

is supposed to decline in the future,

trebalo da opadne u budućnosti,

and the best projections we have is that

i najbolja predviđanja koja možemo imati,

the long-run growth is going to be closer

na duže staze, jeste da rast bude bliže

to one to two percent

jednom ili dva procenta

rather than four to five percent.

pre nego četiri ili pet procenata.

So if you look at this,

Ako pogledate ovo,

these are the best estimates we have

ovo su najbolje procene koje imamo

of world GDP growth

rasta svetskog BDP

and rate of return on capital,

i stope povraćaja imovine,

average rates of return on capital,

prosečnu stopu povraćaja imovine,

so you can see that during most

možete videti da je dugo

of the history of mankind,

u istoriji čovečanstva

the growth rate was very small,

stopa rasta bila veoma niska,

much lower than the rate of return,

mnogo niža od stope povraćaja,

and then during the 20th century,

i onda, tokom 20. veka,

it is really the population growth,

rast populacije je bio taj,

very high in the postwar period,

izuzetno velik u posleratnom dobu,

and the reconstruction process

pored procesa rekonstrukcije,

that brought growth

koji je doneo porast

to a smaller gap with the rate of return.

smanjivši razliku u odnosu na stopu povraćaja.

Here I use the United Nations population projections,

Tu je predstava Ujedinjenih nacija o populaciji,

so of course they are uncertain.

stoga znamo da je nesigurna.

It could be that we all start

Može se desiti da svi počnemo

having a lot of children in the future,

da imamo puno dece u budućnosti

and the growth rates are going to be higher,

te će stope rasta biti mnogo veće,

but from now on,

ali od sada pa nadalje,

these are the best projections we have,

to su najbliže predstave koje imamo,

and this will make global growth

koje će uzrokovati da svetski porast

decline and the gap between

opadne i razlika u odnosu

the rate of return go up.

na stopu povraćaja poraste.

Now, the other unusual event

Sada, drugi neobični događaj

during the 20th century

u 20. veku,

was, as I said,

je bio, kao što sam pomenuo

destruction, taxation of capital,

destrukcija, oporezivanje kapitala,

so this is the pre-tax rate of return.

ovo je stopa povraćaja pre poreza.

This is the after-tax rate of return,

Ovo je stopa povraćaja posle poreza,

and after destruction,

i posle destrukcije,

and this is what brought

i to je ono što dovodi

the average rate of return

prosečnu stopu povraćaja

after tax, after destruction,

posle poreza, posle destrukcije

below the growth rate during a long time period.

na nivo ispod stope rasta na duži period.

But without the destruction,

Ali bez destrukcije,

without the taxation, this would not have happened.

bez oporezivanja, ovo se ne bi ni desilo.

So let me say that the balance between

Želim da kažem da, ravnoteža između

returns on capital and growth

povraćaja kapitala i rasta

depends on many different factors

zavisi od različitih faktora

that are very difficult to predict:

koje je teško predvideti:

technology and the development

tehnologija i razvoj

of capital-intensive techniques.

tehnika povećanja intenziteta kapitala.

So right now, the most capital-intensive sectors

Trenutno, sektori sa najvećim kapitalnim intenzitetom

in the economy are the real estate sector, housing,

u ekonomiji su: nekretnine, stambena izgradnja,

the energy sector, but it could be in the future

električna energija, ali može biti da u budućnosti

that we have a lot more robots in a number of sectors

imamo znatno više robota u većini sektora

and that this would be a bigger share

i da bi to predstavljalo velik udeo

of the total capital stock that it is today.

u ukupnim zalihama kapitala, danas.

Well, we are very far from this,

Vrlo smo daleko od ovoga,

and from now, what's going on

i trenutno, ono što se dešava

in the real estate sector, the energy sector,

sektoru za nekretnine,

električnu energiju

is much more important for the total capital stock

je mnogo važnije za ukupne zalihe kapitala

and capital share.

i za udeo kapitala.

The other important issue

Još jedna važna činjenica

is that there are scale effects in portfolio management,

je reciprocitet zarade u odnosu na poslovanje,

together with financial complexity,

zajedno sa finansijskom kompleksnošću,

financial deregulation,

finansijskom nesređenošću

that make it easier to get higher rates of return

koja je olakšala rast stope povraćaja

for a large portfolio,

za širok spektar ulaganja,

and this seems to be particularly strong

i ovo deluje naročito tačno

for billionaires, large capital endowments.

za milijardere sa izuzetnim kapitalom.

Just to give you one example,

Da vam dam jedan primer

this comes from the Forbes billionaire rankings

koji dolazi iz Forbsovog poretka milijardera

over the 1987-2013 period,

u periodu od 1987. do 2013.

and you can see the very top wealth holders

pa možete videti u vrhu imovinske vlasnike

have been going up at six, seven percent per year

koji idu godišnje ka šest, sedam procenata

in real terms above inflation,

realnih procenata, van inflacije,

whereas average income in the world,

dok je prosek prihoda u svetu,

average wealth in the world,

prosek imovine u svetu,

have increased at only two percent per year.

porastao na samo dva procenta godišnje.

And you find the same

Pronašli biste isto

for large university endowments —

za imućne univerzitete -

the bigger the initial endowments,

što je veći početni kapital,

the bigger the rate of return.

veća će biti stopa povraćaja.

Now, what could be done?

Šta se može učiniti povodom toga?

The first thing is that I think we need

Prva stvar koja nam je, po mom mišljenju, potrebna

more financial transparency.

je jasna slika finansija.

We know too little about global wealth dynamics,

Znamo vrlo malo o dinamici imovine u svetu

so we need international transmission

pa nam je potreban međunarodni prenos

of bank information.

podataka iz banaka.

We need a global registry of financial assets,

Potreban nam je svetski registar finansijskih dobara

more coordination on wealth taxation,

više koordinacije prilikom oporezivanja imovine,

and even wealth tax with a small tax rate

pa čak i porez na imovinu sa niskom stopom

will be a way to produce information

će biti vid prikupljanja podataka

so that then we can adapt our policies

pa da možemo uskladiti svoje postupke

to whatever we observe.

shodno tome što primetimo.

And to some extent, the fight

Donekle, naša borba

against tax havens

protiv utočišta od poreza

and automatic transmission of information

i automatsko širenje informarcija

is pushing us in this direction.

nas guraju u ovom pravcu.

Now, there are other ways to redistribute wealth,

Postoje i drugi načini za raspodelu imovine,

which it can be tempting to use.

koji mogu biti primamljivi za primenu.

Inflation:

Inflacija:

it's much easier to print money

mnogo je lakše ištampati novac

than to write a tax code, so that's very tempting,

i izbeći poreski postupak - vrlo primamljivo,

but sometimes you don't know what you do with the money.

iako nekad ni ne znate šta ste radili s novcem.

This is a problem.

Ovo je problem.

Expropriation is very tempting.

Eksproprijacija je vrlo primamljiva.

Just when you feel some people get too wealthy,

Taman kada osetite da su se neki ljudi obogatili,

you just expropriate them.

samo izvršite eksproprijaciju.

But this is not a very efficient way

Mada ovo nije najefikasniji način

to organize a regulation of wealth dynamics.

da se uspe u regulisanju dinamike imovine.

So war is an even less efficient way,

Rat je još manje efikasan način,

so I tend to prefer progressive taxation,

pa tako ja preferiram povećanje poreza,

but of course, history — (Laughter) —

ali naravno, istorija - (Smeh) -

history will invent its own best ways,

će naći bolje načine

and it will probably involve

koji će uključivati,

verovatno kombinaciju

a combination of all of these.

svega ovoga.

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)

Bruno Giussani: Thomas Piketty. Thank you.

Bruno Đuzani: Tomas Piketi. Hvala.

Thomas, I want to ask you two or three questions,

Tomase, želim da Vam postavim nekoliko pitanja,

because it's impressive how you're in command of your data, of course,

jer je impresivno kako baratate informacijama koje imate,

but basically what you suggest is

ali Vi zapravo hoćete da kažete

growing wealth concentration is kind of

da je rast gomilanja imovine

a natural tendency of capitalism,

samo jedna tendencija kapitalizma,

and if we leave it to its own devices,

i ako je ostavimo samoj sebi,

it may threaten the system itself,

može nauditi našem sistemu,

so you're suggesting that we need to act

a vi predlažete da se pokrenemo

to implement policies that redistribute wealth,

i uvedemo novu politiku preraspodele dobara,

including the ones we just saw:

uključujući i one koje smo sad videli:

progressive taxation, etc.

povećanje poreza?

In the current political context,

U današnjem kontekstu politike

how realistic are those?

koliko su one realne?

How likely do you think that it is

Koliko mislite da mogu

that they will be implemented?

biti sprovedene?

Thomas Piketty: Well, you know, I think

Tomas Piketi: Smatram da

if you look back through time,

ako pogledate nazad u vreme,

the history of income, wealth and taxation

istorijat prihoda, imovine i oporezivanja

is full of surprise.

je pun iznenađenja.

So I am not terribly impressed

Nisam preterano impresioniran

by those who know in advance

onima koji unapred znaju

what will or will not happen.

šta će biti, a i šta neće biti.

I think one century ago,

Mislim da bi pre jednog veka

many people would have said

mnogi ljudi rekli

that progressive income taxation would never happen

da povećanje poreza na prihode neće doći,

and then it happened.

a onda se dogodilo.

And even five years ago,

Čak i pre pet godina,

many people would have said that bank secrecy

mnogi ljudi bi rekli da će tajne banaka

will be with us forever in Switzerland,

biti zauvek s nama u Švajcarskoj,

that Switzerland was too powerful

da je Švajcarska premoćna

for the rest of the world,

u odnosu na ostatak sveta,

and then suddenly it took a few U.S. sanctions

i odjednom, sve što je trebalo je nekoliko sankcija SAD-a

against Swiss banks for a big change to happen,

protiv švajcarskih banaka, da bi dobili znatnu promenu,

and now we are moving toward

a sada se krećemo

more financial transparency.

ka jasnom viđenju finansija.

So I think it's not that difficult

Mislim da nije naročito teško

to better coordinate politically.

doći do bolje političke koordinacije.

We are going to have a treaty

Da imamo sporazum

with half of the world GDP around the table

sa BDP-om polovine sveta na stolu,

with the U.S. and the European Union,

sa SAD-om i Evropskom unijom,

so if half of the world GDP is not enough

a ako BDP polovine sveta nije dovoljan

to make progress on financial transparency

da se rastumači slika finansija u svetu

and minimal tax for multinational corporate profits,

i da se se postave minimalni porezi za profit multinacionalnih korporacija,

what does it take?

šta nam je onda potrebno?

So I think these are not technical difficulties.

Smatram da ovo nisu tehničke poteškoće.

I think we can make progress

Mislim da možemo napredovati

if we have a more pragmatic approach to these questions

ako bismo imali pragmatičniji pristup ovim pitanjima

and we have the proper sanctions

i ako bismo imali redovne sankcije

on those who benefit from financial opacity.

za one kojima godi zataškivanje finansija.

BG: One of the arguments

BĐ: Jedan od argumenata

against your point of view

protiv Vašeg gledišta

is that economic inequality

je da ekonomska nejednakost

is not only a feature of capitalism but is actually one of its engines.

nije samo karakteristika kapitalizma, već jedna od njenih mašina.

So we take measures to lower inequality,

Preduzimamo mere za smanjenje nejednakosti

and at the same time we lower growth, potentially.

ali time i rizikujemo potencijalno smanjenje rasta.

What do you answer to that?

Kakav odgovor imate na to?

TP: Yeah, I think inequality

TP: Da, mislim da nejednakost

is not a problem per se.

nije problem po sebi.

I think inequality up to a point

Mislim da nejednakost donekle

can actually be useful for innovation and growth.

može zapravo biti korisna za inovacije i razvoj.

The problem is, it's a question of degree.

Problem je što je to pitanje stepena.

When inequality gets too extreme,

Kad nejednakost poprimi velike razmere,

then it becomes useless for growth

postaje neupotrebljiva za rast

and it can even become bad

i čak može da postane loša

because it tends to lead to high perpetuation

jer uzrokuje

of inequality over time

ukorenjenu nejednakost

and low mobility.

i slabu mobilnost.

And for instance, the kind of wealth concentrations

Recimo, koncentracija imovine

that we had in the 19th century

koju smo imali u 19. veku

and pretty much until World War I

i sve do Prvog svetskog rata

in every European country

u svakoj evropskoj državi

was, I think, not useful for growth.

nije bila korisna za porast.

This was destroyed by a combination

Ovo je uništeno kombinacijom

of tragic events and policy changes,

tragičnih događaja i promena poslovanja,

and this did not prevent growth from happening.

i nije sprečilo pojavu porasta.

And also, extreme inequality can be bad

Takođe, ekstremna nejednakost može biti loša

for our democratic institutions

za naše demokratske institucije,

if it creates very unequal access to political voice,

ako stvori nejednake načine političkog oglašavanja

and the influence of private money

i uticaj ličnog bogatstva,

in U.S. politics, I think,

u politici SAD-a, mislim,

is a matter of concern right now.

je sada već zabrinjavajuća stvar.

So we don't want to return to that kind of extreme,

Ne želimo da se vraćamo na takav ekstrem,

pre-World War I inequality.

nejednakost poput one u predratnom periodu.

Having a decent share of the national wealth

Imati pristojan udeo u nacionalnom blagu

for the middle class is not bad for growth.

za srednju klasu, nije tako loše za porast.

It is actually useful

Zapravo je korisno

both for equity and efficiency reasons.

kako za opštu pravičnost, tako i za efikasnost.

BG: I said at the beginning

BĐ: Rekao sam na početku

that your book has been criticized.

da je Vaša knjiga bila kritikovana.

Some of your data has been criticized.

Vaši podaci su kritikovani.

Some of your choice of data sets has been criticized.

Neki od Vaših izbora podataka su bili kritikovani.

You have been accused of cherry-picking data

Optuženi ste

za pristrasno skupljanje podataka

to make your case. What do you answer to that?

kako bi Vam išli u korist. Šta je Vaš odgovor?

TP: Well, I answer that I am very happy

TP: Pa, odgovorio sam da sam jako srećan

that this book is stimulating debate.

što ova knjiga podstiče diskusiju.

This is part of what it is intended for.

To joj je delom i svrha.

Look, the reason why I put all the data online

Vidite, razlog što sam stavio sve podatke na internet

with all of the detailed computation

sa svom detaljnom računicom je

is so that we can have an open and transparent

da bismo imali otvorenu i jasnu

debate about this.

diskusiju o ovome.

So I have responded point by point

Stoga sam reagovao pojedinačno

to every concern.

na svaku brigu.

Let me say that if I was to rewrite the book today,

Dozvolite, da imam priliku da opet napišem knjigu,

I would actually conclude

zaključio bih

that the rise in wealth inequality,

da je rast imovinske nejednakosti

particularly in the United States,

naročito u Sjedinjenim državama,

has been actually higher than what I report in my book.

bio veći od onoga što navodim u svojoj knjizi.

There is a recent study by Saez and Zucman

Postoji skorije istraživanje Saeza i Zukmana

showing, with new data

koje pokazuje, novim podacima

which I didn't have at the time of the book,

koje nisam imao tokom pisanja knjige,

that wealth concentration in the U.S. has risen

da je gomilanje imovine u SAD-u poraslo

even more than what I report.

i više nego što ja navodim.

And there will be other data in the future.

I biće boljih podataka u budućnosti.

Some of it will go in different directions.

Neki od njih će ići u različitim pravcima.

Look, we put online almost every week

Vidite, mi na internet stavljamo skoro svake nedelje

new, updated series on the World Top Income Database

nove, unapređene serije na svetskoj bazi podataka o prihodima,

and we will keep doing so in the future,

a nastavićemo da radimo to i u budućnosti,

in particular in emerging countries,

posebno kod država u razvoju,

and I welcome all of those who want to contribute

stoga pozivam sve koji žele doprineti

to this data collection process.

ovom procesu prikupljanja podataka.

In fact, I certainly agree

Svakako bih se složio

that there is not enough

da nije dovoljno

transparency about wealth dynamics,

jasna dinamika imovine.

and a good way to have better data

i dobar način da se prikupe bolji podaci

would be to have a wealth tax

bi bilo imati porez na imovinu

with a small tax rate to begin with

sa niskom stopom, za početak

so that we can all agree

tako da se možemo složiti

about this important evolution

u vezi sa ovom važnom evolucijom

and adapt our policies to whatever we observe.

i da postupke uskladimo sa onim što opažamo.

So taxation is a source of knowledge,

Oporezivanje je izvor znanja,

and that's what we need the most right now.

i to je ono što bi nam najviše trebalo danas.

BG: Thomas Piketty, merci beaucoup.

BĐ: Tomas Piketi, hvala mnogo.

Thank you. TP: Thank you. (Applause)

TP: Hvala. Hvala. (Aplauz)