PİKETTY’NİN İKİZ GÜNAHI: GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI MESELESİNİ TEKRAR İKTİSADİ ANALİZİN MERKEZİNE YERLEŞTİRMEK VE KÜRESEL SERVET VERGİSİ ÖNERMEK

Öz

21. Yüzyılda Kapital adlı kitabında Thomas Piketty, a) iki dünya savaşından beri gelir ve servet dağılımının sermaye lehine ve emek aleyhine bozulduğu sonucuna varmakta ve b) bu durumu iyileştirmek için küresel bir servet vergisi önermektedir. Piketty bu çalış-masıyla gelir ve servet dağılımı meselesini tekrar iktisadi analizin merkezine yerleştirmiş, ütopik te olsa emek ve sermaye payları arasındaki açığın kapatılması için bir küresel servet vergisi önermiştir. Bu sonuçlar Anglosakson finans dünyasını kontrol eden finan-sal elit açısından hoş karşılanmadığı için, makalede “Piketty’nin İkiz Günahı” olarak nite-lendirilmektedir. Dünya ekonomisinin gerçekte nasıl işlediğini göstermesi ve emek-sermaye ilişkilerini olumsuz etkileyen adaletsizliklere ışık tutması bakımından son dere-ce yararlı olan bu bulgular, finansal elitin eleştirilerine hedef olmuştur. Finansal hizmet-ler, kredi derecelendirme, libor, medya ve iktisat öğretimi endüstrilerinde oligopolcü yapılar oluşturan ve gelir ve servetin emek ile sermaye arasındaki bölüşümünü gözler-den uzak tutmaya çalışan finansal elit, eleştirilerini oligopolcü medya, oligopolcü iktisat eğitim kurumları ve oligopolcü think-tanklar aracılığıyla seslendirmektedir. Piketty’ye soldan da eleştiriler gelmekle birlikte, bunlar kitabın ulaştığı sonuçlara değil sadece önerilen küresel sermaye vergisinin uygulanmasının mevcut sistemde imkansızlığı ile ilgilidir. Bu makalenin amacı, esasen finansal elitin Piketty’yi hedef alan eleştirilerini analiz etmek ve eleştirilerin arka planındaki oligopolcü yapılanmayı ortaya koymaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Thomas Piketty,21. Yüzyılda Kapital,Finansal Elit,Gelir ve Servet Dağılımı,Küresel Servet Vergisi,Oligopol

THE TWIN SINS OF PIKETTY: TO PUT THE ISSUE OF INCOME AND WEALTH DISTRIBUTION PROBLEM BACK AT THE CENTER OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND TO PROPOSE A GLOBAL WEALTH TAX ON CAPITAL

Öz

Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the 21th Century comes to the conclusion that income and wealth distribution among capital and labor has deteriorated against labor since the two World War and b) proposes a global wealth tax on capital to ameliorate the deterioration. With his book Piketty has put the issue of income and wealth distribution problem back at the center of economic analysis and proposed a global wealth tax on capital, although it is utopic, to bridge the gap between capital and labor shares of income. In this paper these conclusions are called “Twin Sins of Piketty” that are not welcomed by the financial elite that has controlled anglo-saxon finance. The very valuable and meaningful findings of Piketty that show how real economy works and address to the injustice that affects negatively the labor-capital relations have become the target of critics of the financial elite. The financial elite that set up oligopolis-tic structures in financial services, credit rating, libor, media and economics education indus-tries and kept the issue of distribution of income between capital and labor out of economic research agenda has voiced its critics via oligopolistic media, oligopolistic economics education institutions and oligopolistic think-tanks. The leftist critics to Piketty are principally not about the findings of the book but about the impossibility of implementing a global wealth tax on capital given the present state-capital network. The aims of this paper are to analyze mainly the critics to Piketty by the financial elite and to reveal the oligopolistic background that supports these critics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Thomas Piketty,Capital in the 21th Century,Financial Elite,Income and Wealth Distribution,Global Wealth Tax on Capital,Oligopoly

Kaynakça

1. BAGDIKIAN, B., (2000), The Media Monopoly, 6th edition., Beacon Press, Boston.
2. BBC, (2015), “Libor: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?”, May 27, 2015.
3. BENMELECH, E., Dlugosz, J., (2010), “The Credit Rating Crisis”, National Bureau of Economic Research.
4. BOCUTOĞLU, E., (2014a), “ABD’de Glass-Steagall Yasasının Yürürlükten Kaldırılma-sı 2007 Küresel Finansal Krizini Tetikledi mi?: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Değerlendir-me”, Bankacılar Dergisi, Sayı 90: 83-111.
5. BOCUTOĞLU, E., (2014b), “Hukuk ve İktisat İlişkileri İçin Bir Örnek Olay Olarak Glass-Steagall Yasası ile 2007 Küresel Finansal Krizi Bağlantısı”, UEK-TEK 2014, Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu Uluslararası Ekonomi Kongresi, Küresel İstikrar ve Büyüme ve İktisadın Durumu, 18-20 Ekim 2014, Kemer, Antalya.
6. BOCUTOĞLU, E., (2015a), “Have Credit Rating Agencies Got a Role in Triggering 2007 Global Financial Crisis?”, International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Kazan, Russia, 2015.
7. BOCUTOĞLU, E., (2015b), “Servetin Yoğunlaşması, İktisadi Güç ve Ekonomi İlişkile-ri: Anglosakson Finansal Hizmetler, Kredi Derecelendirme, Libor ve Media En-düstrilerindeki Oligopolcü Eğilimlerin Pikettyci Açıdan Analizi”, Ekonomik Yak-laşım Dergisi, Piketty Özel Sayısı, 26:1, 2015. ve EYC International Conference on Economics II: Growth, Inequality and Poverty, Ankara, 2015.
8. BOCUTOĞLU, E., (2015c), “Kredi Derecelendirme Kuruluşları ve 2007 Küresel Fi-nansal Krizi”, Hak-İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, Sayı:10, 2015.

9. BOCUTOĞLU, E., (2015d), “2008 Küresel Finansal Krizinin Nedenleri”, İktisadi Kriz-ler ve Türkiye Ekonomisi (Prof. Dr. İlker Parasız’a Armağan), Orion Kitabevi, Ankara, 2015.
10. BOCUTOĞLU, E., (2015e), “İktisadi Konjonktür Teorileri”, İktisadi Krizler ve Türkiye Ekonomisi (Prof. Dr. İlker Parasız’a Armağan), Orion Kitabevi, Ankara, 2015
11. COLANDER, D., Holt, R., Rosser, B., (2003), “The Changing Face of Mainstream Eco-nomics”, Middleburry College Discussion Paper, No:03/23.
12. COLANDER, D., (2009), “The Financial Crisis and the Systematic Failure of Academic Economics”, Kiel Working Papers No: 1489, February 2009.
13. COLANDER, D., (2008), Making of an Economist, Redux, Princeton University Press.
14. COLOMBO, J., (2014), “Thes New Libor ‘Scandal’ Will Cause A Terrifying Financial
15. CRISIS”, Forbes, March 6, 2014.
16. CRAWFORD, C. (2011). “The Repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act and The Current
17. Financial Crisis”, Journal of Business and Economic Research, Volume:9, Number:1.
18. DARCY, D., (2009), “Credit Rating Agencies and the Credit Crisis: How the ‘Issuer Pays’ Conflict Contributed and What Regulators Might Do About It”, Columbia Business Law Review, 605 (2009).
19. EASTERLY, W., (2012), “Cartel of Good Intentions”, Foreign Policy (131):40-49.
20. EKINS, E. M., CALABRIA, M.A., (2012), “Regulation, Market Structure, and Role of
21. Credit Rating Agencies”, Policy Analysis, No:704. August 1, 2012.
22. DOLCEROCCA, A., Terzioğlu, G., (2015), “Interview: Thomas Piketty Responds to Critisism From the Left”, www.potemkinreview.com/pikettyinterview.html, Ja-nuary 215.
23. Giles, C., (2014), “Piketty’s Findings Undercut by Errors”, ft.com/globaleconomy, May 23, 2014.
24. GUDZOWSKI, M., (2010), “Mortgage Credit Ratings and the Financial Crisis: The Need for a State-Run Mortgage Security Credit Rating Agency”, Columbia Busi-ness Law Review, 1 (2010).
25. HERMAN, E.S., Chomsky, N., (2002), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media, Pantheon Books, New York.
26. HODGSON, G.M., (2009), “The Great Crash of 2008 and the Reform of Economics”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33.
27. HUNT, J.P.,(Tarihsiz), Credit Rating Agencies and the ‘Worlwide Credit Crisis’: The
28. LIMITS of Reputation, the Insufficency of Reforms and a Proposal for Improvement, www2.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/institute/finanz/skript_semfin/t12.pdf
29. KLEIN, A.P., (2006), Economics Confronts the Economy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cornwall, UK.
30. KUTTNER, R. (2013). “Seven Deadly Sins of Deregulation and Three Necessary
31. REFORMS”, The American Prospect, prospect.org/article/seven-deadly-sins-deregulation-and-three-necessary-reforms
32. LUTZ, A., (2012), “These 6 Corporations Control 90% of Media in America”, Busi-ness Insider, June 14,2012.
33. MATTHEWS, C., (2015), “Did a 26-year-old Just Take Down Thomas Piketty?”, April 6, 2015, fortune.com
34. MCVEA, H., (2010), “Credit Rating Agencies, Subprime Mortgage Debacle and
35. Global Governance: The EU Strikes Back”, International and Comparative Law Quar-terly, 59.
36. The National Commission. (2011). The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Official Go-vernment Edition, FCIC Website.
37. PARTNEY, F., (1999), “The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets?: Two Thumbs Down For the Credit Rating Agencies”, Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol:77, No: 3 (1999).
38. PIKKETY, T., (2015), 21. Yüzyılda Kapital, (Çeviren: Hande Koçak), Türkiye İş Ban-kası Kültür Yayınları, Genel Yayın: 3144, İstanbul.
39. ROUBINI, N., ve Mihm, S. (2012). Kriz Ekonomisi, Dünya Ekonomisinin Çöküşü ve Geleceği, (Çeviren: Işıl Tezcan), Pegasus Yayınları: 422, Ekonomi: 3., İstanbul.
40. ROGNLIE, M., (2014), “A Note on Piketty and Diminishing Returns to Capital”, www.mit.edu.,June 15, 2014.
41. ROGNLIE, M., (2015), “Deciphering the Fall and the Rise of the Net Capital Share”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, BPEA Conference Draft, March 19-20, 2015.
42. RYAN, J., (2012), The Negative Impact of Credit Rating Agencies and Proposals for
43. Better Regulation, Working Paper, FG 1, No: 01.,Research Division EU Integration, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, SWP Berlin.
44. SMITH, A., (1776), The Wealth of Nation.
45. SOROS, G. (2008). “The Worst Market Crisis in 60 Years”, Financial Times, (January 22, 2008).
46. SOROS, G., (2014), “Anatomy of a Crisis”, www.georgesoros.com/interview. 22.08.2014.
47. The Economist, (2014), “Housing in the Twenty-First Century”, June 17, 2014.
48. WHITEHOUSE, K., (2015), SEC Charges Ratings Agency S§P over Ratings, USA
49. Today, 21 Ocak 2015.
50. WOLF, M., (2014), “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty, www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/Ocbe9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-0014fabdc0.html, April 15, 2014.