Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Capital in the Twenty-First Century Plot Summary

Introduction

In the early 19th century, a young man named Rastignac received shocking advice from Vautrin, a character in Balzac's novel "Father Goriot." Vautrin explained that pursuing a prestigious career through education and hard work would never match the lifestyle afforded by marrying into wealth. This literary scene captures a fundamental question that has shaped societies across centuries: what matters more for prosperity—labor or inheritance? The tension between earned success and inherited privilege has defined economic systems, social mobility, and political structures throughout human history. This exploration takes us through the evolution of capital, wealth, and inequality from the 18th century to the present day. We'll examine how the relationship between capital and income has transformed across different eras, why inequality declined dramatically after World War I only to rise again in recent decades, and what forces determine whether we live in a society dominated by inherited fortunes or one where work is rewarded. Anyone interested in understanding the deep economic forces shaping our world, the historical patterns of wealth distribution, or the prospects for social mobility in the 21st century will find this journey illuminating.

Chapter 1: The Belle Époque: Patrimonial Capitalism at Its Peak (1870-1914)

The period from 1870 to 1914, known as the Belle Époque in France and the Gilded Age in America, represented the apex of European wealth concentration. In countries like Britain and France, capital was worth six to seven years of national income, with the top 10% owning 80-90% of all wealth and the top 1% alone controlling 50-60%. This extreme concentration created societies dominated by inherited wealth, where living off capital returns was more lucrative than working. The wealthy elite of this era lived in a world apart, with vast fortunes invested primarily in government bonds, land, and industrial assets. Literature from this period, from Jane Austen to Honoré de Balzac, vividly portrays societies where inheritance determined one's station in life. For a young man of talent but modest means, the surest path to wealth was not through education or work but through an advantageous marriage, as Balzac's character Rastignac discovers in "Le Père Goriot." This patrimonial society rested on several foundations: stable currencies under the gold standard, minimal taxation, limited government intervention, and legal systems protecting private property. The rate of return on capital consistently exceeded economic growth (with returns of 4-5% annually versus growth of 1-1.5%), allowing fortunes to accumulate and concentrate across generations. The Belle Époque elite used political influence to protect their advantages, with voting rights often restricted to property owners. The extreme inequality of this period was justified by the emerging doctrine of laissez-faire economics, which portrayed free markets as naturally efficient and just. Yet beneath the glittering surface of aristocratic wealth lay growing social tensions. Labor movements gained strength, socialist ideas spread, and democratic pressures mounted. This gilded world appeared stable to its beneficiaries, but was built on foundations that would soon be shattered by the cataclysm of World War I.

Chapter 2: World Wars and Capital Destruction (1914-1945)

The period from 1914 to 1945 witnessed the most dramatic compression of wealth inequality in modern history. World War I delivered the first shock to the established order, destroying physical capital through bombing and combat while triggering massive inflation that wiped out the value of government bonds and monetary assets. The Russian Revolution of 1917 eliminated private capital entirely in what had been one of Europe's largest economies, sending shockwaves through the capitalist world. The interwar years brought no respite. The Great Depression of 1929 devastated financial markets, with stock values in the United States falling by nearly 80%. Bank failures wiped out savings, while mass unemployment undermined labor incomes. Political instability reigned as democracies struggled and authoritarian regimes rose. Then came World War II, bringing even greater physical destruction across Europe and Asia, along with further waves of inflation, nationalization, and expropriation. The combined effect of these shocks was a collapse in the capital/income ratio. In Europe, capital values fell from 6-7 years of national income to just 2-3 years. The share of income going to capital owners dropped dramatically, while progressive taxation—introduced to finance war efforts—reached unprecedented levels. Top marginal income tax rates, which had been near zero in 1914, rose to 80-90% in the United States and Britain. Estate taxes similarly reached confiscatory levels for the largest fortunes. These changes weren't merely economic but represented a profound social transformation. The rentier class—those who lived off inherited wealth—saw their social position collapse. The novels and films of this period no longer featured inheritance as the path to wealth, focusing instead on work and merit. The aristocratic lifestyle became financially unsustainable for all but the very wealthiest families. By 1945, wealth concentration had fallen to historically low levels. The top 10% now owned 60-70% of wealth rather than 90%, while the top 1% saw their share fall from 50-60% to 20-30%. This "great compression" created the foundation for the more egalitarian mid-century society that followed, demonstrating how quickly entrenched inequality could be reversed through the combined forces of capital destruction, inflation, and progressive taxation.

Chapter 3: The Great Compression: Post-War Egalitarian Era (1945-1980)

The three decades following World War II—often called the "Thirty Glorious Years" in France—represented a unique period of high growth, declining inequality, and diminished importance of inherited wealth. Economic growth reached unprecedented levels of 4-5% annually in Europe and 2-3% in the United States, driven by reconstruction, technological catch-up, and expanding education. This growth, combined with progressive taxation and inflation, prevented the reconstitution of the large fortunes destroyed during the war years. The social state expanded dramatically during this period. Government spending, which had represented just 10% of national income in most countries before 1914, now reached 30-40%. This funded universal access to education, healthcare, and retirement security. Progressive income taxation, with top marginal rates remaining above 70% in the United States until 1980, limited income concentration at the top. Meanwhile, minimum wage laws and collective bargaining strengthened labor's position relative to capital. Inheritance flows fell to historically low levels, representing just 4-5% of national income compared to 20-25% before 1914. This decline reflected both the destruction of fortunes during the war period and demographic factors, as the generation that would have been passing on wealth in these decades had accumulated less capital. The age at which people inherited increased, while the amounts inherited declined relative to labor earnings. For the first time in history, work income became more important than inherited wealth for the vast majority of the population, including much of the elite. A new meritocratic optimism took hold, particularly in the United States. The belief that education and talent would determine economic success replaced the earlier fatalism about inherited advantage. Universities expanded dramatically, with enrollment rates rising from less than 5% to over 30% in many countries. The middle class, defined by ownership of significant but not dominant capital, grew to represent 40% of the population, owning 30-40% of national wealth—a historically unprecedented level. This "patrimonial middle class" represented something genuinely new in history. Yet beneath this egalitarian surface, fundamental forces were already at work that would eventually undermine this unique social equilibrium. The rebuilding of capital stocks proceeded steadily, while growth rates began to decline from their postwar peaks. By the late 1970s, the capital/income ratio had already begun its long climb back toward Belle Époque levels, setting the stage for the resurgence of inequality in the decades to come.

Chapter 4: Resurgence of Inequality and Capital's Return (1980-2010)

The period from 1980 to 2010 witnessed a dramatic reversal of the egalitarian trends of the post-war era. This transformation began with the conservative revolution of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the United States, which championed deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Top marginal income tax rates were slashed from 70-80% to around 30-40%, while estate taxes were similarly reduced. Financial deregulation accelerated capital mobility across borders, making it harder for individual nations to tax wealth effectively. Capital's share of national income rose substantially during this period. After falling to historic lows of around 15-25% in the 1970s, the proportion of income flowing to capital owners climbed back to 25-30% by the 2000s. The capital/income ratio similarly increased, approaching or exceeding 5-6 years of national income in most wealthy countries by 2010—levels not seen since the Belle Époque. Privatization of public assets contributed to this trend, transferring wealth from the state to private owners. Income inequality increased dramatically, particularly in Anglo-Saxon countries. In the United States, the share of total income captured by the top 1% more than doubled from less than 10% in 1980 to over 20% by 2010. A new phenomenon emerged: the rise of "supermanagers" receiving unprecedented compensation packages. By 2010, corporate executives, not rentiers, dominated the top 0.1% of the income distribution, though their astronomical salaries often translated into new fortunes that could be passed to the next generation. Inheritance flows began rising again, reaching 12-14% of national income in countries like France by 2010, compared to 4-5% in 1970. The mathematics of wealth accumulation reasserted themselves: with the return on capital (r) of 4-5% consistently exceeding economic growth (g) of 1-2%, inherited fortunes once again grew faster than the economy. The wealth of billionaires expanded at 6-7% annually, significantly outpacing average incomes. Globalization accelerated these trends while creating new forms of wealth concentration. Emerging economies like China and Russia developed their own billionaire classes, often through privatization of natural resources or state enterprises. Tax havens flourished, with an estimated 8-10% of global financial wealth held offshore by 2010. The 2008 financial crisis temporarily interrupted but ultimately reinforced these trends, as government bailouts protected financial capital while austerity measures fell heavily on wage earners.

Chapter 5: The Fundamental Force of r > g Throughout History

Throughout most of human history, the rate of return on capital (r) has significantly exceeded the rate of economic growth (g), creating a fundamental force for wealth divergence. From antiquity through the nineteenth century, returns on agricultural land, urban real estate, and government bonds typically ranged from 4-5% annually, while economic growth rarely exceeded 1%. This mathematical reality meant that wealth accumulated from the past grew faster than output and wages, allowing fortunes to concentrate over generations. This pattern can be observed across vastly different societies and economic systems. In ancient Rome, medieval Europe, and pre-revolutionary France, landed aristocracies maintained their dominance for centuries because their estates generated returns that consistently outpaced economic expansion. The novels of Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac vividly illustrate this reality: a fortune of 1 million francs yielding 50,000 francs annually (a 5% return) provided a life of luxury when the average worker earned just 500 francs per year in an economy growing at less than 1%. The twentieth century temporarily disrupted this pattern through a unique combination of factors. Physical destruction of capital during two world wars, high inflation, progressive taxation, and exceptionally strong growth during the post-war boom (3-4% annually) created a situation where g approached or even exceeded r for several decades. This anomalous period fostered the illusion that capitalism naturally evolved toward greater equality, but this view has proven mistaken as growth rates declined while returns on capital remained robust. The mathematics of compound growth make the long-term consequences of r > g extraordinarily powerful. When returns exceed growth by just 2-3 percentage points annually, the share of capital in the economy tends to increase indefinitely until it reaches extreme levels. Without countervailing forces, this process leads to societies dominated by inherited wealth, where the past devours the future. Historical evidence suggests that only significant shocks—wars, revolutions, or transformative policy changes—have been capable of disrupting this tendency toward wealth concentration. Democratic societies have developed three main responses to this divergent force: progressive taxation of income and inheritance, which directly reduces the after-tax return on capital; inflation, which erodes the value of past wealth; and investment in education, which increases labor productivity and wages. The relative effectiveness of these approaches has varied across time and place, but all face significant limitations in an era of global capital mobility and tax competition between nations.

Chapter 6: Global Capital and New Oligarchies in the 21st Century

The early twenty-first century has witnessed the emergence of new patterns of global wealth concentration that combine elements of the Belle Époque with novel features of the modern economy. By 2013, the world's billionaires—numbering around 1,400 individuals—collectively owned nearly $5.4 trillion, equivalent to more than 3% of global wealth and growing at a pace of 6-7% annually, significantly faster than the overall economy. This concentration of resources in so few hands represents a level of inequality not seen since the Gilded Age. The geographic distribution of great fortunes has shifted dramatically. While North America and Europe still dominate global wealth rankings, new fortunes have emerged from the developing world, particularly in Asia. China has produced more billionaires in a single decade than Europe did during the entire industrial revolution. Russia's post-Soviet privatization created oligarchs controlling vast natural resources. The Middle East's petroleum wealth has generated sovereign funds worth trillions, effectively transforming public resources into dynastic private capital. New mechanisms of wealth concentration have supplemented traditional ones. Financial globalization has allowed capital to seek the highest returns worldwide while often escaping national taxation. The expansion of intellectual property rights has created enormous fortunes in technology and media. Corporate governance changes have enabled unprecedented executive compensation, with CEOs earning hundreds of times what average workers make. Meanwhile, the fundamental force of r > g continues to operate, with average returns on large fortunes consistently exceeding 6-7% compared to global growth rates of 3-3.5%. The rise of institutional investors represents another significant development. University endowments like Harvard's and Yale's have achieved returns of 10% annually over decades, far exceeding average growth rates. Sovereign wealth funds from Norway, Abu Dhabi, and China manage trillions in assets, creating new forms of state capitalism. These sophisticated investors enjoy advantages unavailable to ordinary savers, including access to alternative investments, economies of scale, and professional management. Tax havens have flourished in this environment, with an estimated 8-10% of global financial wealth now held offshore. Banking secrecy and complex legal structures allow the wealthiest individuals and corporations to minimize their tax burdens, undermining national fiscal systems. The effective tax rate paid by the largest fortunes has declined dramatically, often falling below what middle-class households pay. This new global oligarchy differs from its Belle Époque predecessor in important ways. It includes more self-made entrepreneurs alongside heirs to great fortunes. It spans more countries and cultures. It often justifies itself through philanthropic activities rather than aristocratic privilege. Yet the fundamental challenge remains: when returns on capital significantly exceed economic growth, wealth tends to concentrate in fewer hands, potentially threatening democratic institutions and equal opportunity.

Summary

The historical evolution of capital and inequality reveals a striking pattern: left to its own devices, capitalism tends to concentrate wealth when the rate of return on capital exceeds the growth rate of the economy. This fundamental force of divergence (r > g) operated powerfully before World War I, creating societies dominated by inherited wealth. The twentieth century's great shocks—two world wars, the Great Depression, and unprecedented growth during the post-war boom—temporarily disrupted this pattern, creating the illusion that modern economic development naturally leads to greater equality. However, since the 1980s, we have witnessed a return to patrimonial capitalism as wealth concentration has increased dramatically across the developed world. This historical perspective offers crucial insights for addressing today's growing inequality. First, economic growth alone cannot be relied upon to reduce wealth concentration—indeed, slower growth in mature economies may accelerate inequality by widening the gap between r and g. Second, the most effective historical counterweights to rising inequality have been progressive taxation, educational investment, and financial transparency. As capital becomes increasingly global and mobile, these tools must be adapted to the twenty-first century through international cooperation. Without deliberate democratic intervention to counter the natural tendency of capital to concentrate, we risk returning to extreme levels of inequality that undermine both economic opportunity and political equality. The choice between allowing the past to devour the future or creating more inclusive institutions ultimately depends not on economic inevitability but on political decisions informed by historical understanding.

About Author

Loading...

Thomas Piketty

Thomas Piketty (French: [tɔma pikɛti]; born May 7, 1971) is a French economist who works on wealth and income inequality. He is the director of studies at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and professor at the Paris School of Economics. He is the author of the best selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which emphasizes the themes of his work on wealth concentrations and distribution over the past 250 years. The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.Piketty was born on May 7, 1971, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy. He gained a C-stream (scientific) Baccalauréat, and after taking scientific preparatory classes, he entered the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) at the age of 18, where he studied mathematics and economics. At the age of 22, Piketty was awarded his Ph.D. for a thesis on wealth redistribution, which he wrote at the EHESS and the London School of Economics under Roger Guesnerie.After earning his PhD, Piketty taught from 1993 to 1995 as an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he joined the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) as a researcher, and in 2000 he became director of studies at EHESS.Piketty won the 2002 prize for the best young economist in France, and according to a list dated November 11, 2003, he is a member of the scientific orientation board of the association "À gauche, en Europe", founded by Michel Rocard and Dominique Strauss-Kahn.In 2006 Piketty became the first head of the Paris School of Economics, which he helped set up. He left after a few months to serve as an economic advisor to Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal during the French presidential campaign. Piketty resumed teaching at the Paris School of Economics in 2007.He is a columnist for the French newspaper Libération, and occasionally writes op-eds for Le Monde.In April 2012, Piketty co-authored along with 42 colleagues an open letter in support of then-PS candidate for the French presidency François Hollande. Hollande won the contest against the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in May of that year.In 2013, Piketty won the biennial Yrjö Jahnsson Award, for the economist under age 45 who has "made a contribution in theoretical and applied research that is significant to the study of economics in Europe."Piketty specializes in economic inequality, taking a historic and statistical approach. His work looks at the rate of capital accumulation in relation to economic growth over a two hundred year spread from the nineteenth century to the present. His novel use of tax records enabled him to gather data on the very top economic elite, who had previously been understudied, and to ascertain their rate of accumulation of wealth and how this compared to the rest of society and economy. His most recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, relies on economic data going back 250 years to show that an ever-rising concentration of wealth is not self-correcting. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.

Read more