The work of Professor of the Paris School of Economics Thomas Piketty "Capital in the XXI Century", published in 2013 and translated into English a year later, quickly became famous all over the world: its total circulation as of June 2015 exceeded 2 million copies (in Russia it was published in This year, the publishing house Ad Marginem). Since filing Piketty problem of global inequality come to the forefront in economic discussions, and the author himself came to be called "contemporary Karl Marx" and "rock-star economics". In Moscow, the author of "Capital in the XXI century" came to meet with the readers of his book at the fair Non / Fiction in the Higher School of Economics. - Most participants in the rating of billionaires Forbes - both Russian and global - made their fortunes themselves. How does this relate to your thesis that the real wealth of the richest 1% of the population - capital gains? - This is a very interesting point. If you take a list of Russian Forbes, it is easy to see: the Soviet period all of these conditions did not exist. But you in Russia in 1990-2000-ies there was a process of privatization, and it was not something natural or spontaneous. People who as a result of this process were business owners with a huge amount of natural resources, not invented oil or gas. That is not to say that they have made the state. In order to take possession of natural resources, the Russian oligarchs do not have a lot of work. - Well, what about the global list? - Take, for example, the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim - also an interesting case. He became the owner of a cellular network in Mexico. But cell phone he did not invent. And many believe in the privatization process of cellular communication in Mexico - of course, it was not the same that the privatization of Soviet state property! - Prices were very favorable [for Sliema]. What I try to explain in my book, these stories are always personal enrichment are a complex mixture of privatization processes, inheritance, sometimes - innovation, often monopolies, even kvazimonopolizma. In particular, companies such as Microsoft, Facebook are global quasi-monopolies, which play a very important role in our lives. Another really interesting example of which I tell in the book - the story of Liliane Bettencourt, №1 in the list of the richest people in Europe (currently the richest man in Europe - co-founder of Zara Amancio Ortega, $ 72, 9 billion, №4 globally the list of Forbes, and Betancourt in second place - Forbes). Her father, Eugene Schueller was a true entrepreneur, he founded L'Oreal in 1909 and produces a variety of useful products for hair care - just like the hero of Balzac Caesar Birotteau [Piketty which repeatedly mentions in the "Capital of the XXI century» - Forbes]. Schuller has died in late 1950, and the company passed to his daughter Lillian, who never in his life did not work. There is nothing wrong with that, just in 2015, it is still in the same place, and its state since the 1990s for the 2010s has grown from $ 3 billion to $ 30 billion. Exactly the same factor in this time rich Bill Gates - from $ 5 billion to $ 50 billion. I think everyone, not just me and the journalists Forbes, I would like to state belonged to those who deserve it, and the state of Liliane Bettencourt increased to a lesser degree than that of Bill Gates. But in reality, things are more complicated. I'm not against the big states. Simply, in my opinion, do not need to start from the principle that the contribution of entrepreneurs evaluated solely on the size of their capital. And we must ensure that in any rhythm change different income groups - the common people, the middle class, the rich - to the level of their welfare would increase comparable rate. So far, according to published data, the situation is different. If you look at the data that you are publishing since 1987 until 2014, the average state of the richest grew three to four times faster than the world economy as a whole. It's just a matter of logic - if you have a state of the richest people is growing faster than the whole economy in the long term, this may not work. I'm sure it's just nonsense. - Generally, this implies a curious idea - regarded as the heirs of Russian oligarchs. - In fact, they are not the heirs - they just stood at the cash register and transferred public property into private. No one had any money to buy public property, still around because it was a public - private property, in fact, there was no. But it was possible to transfer state assets to the private sector gradually more egalitarian manner - or fast, very small group of people, what happened in Russia in the 1990s and continued in the 2000s. It's really important that if we look at Russia from 2000 to 2015. We will see a continuation of the same process - the transfer of ownership to private hands. If we take the natural resources sector and the public sector, I was just struck by the size of the trade surplus by exporting natural resources that belong to the oligarchs. The annual trade surplus in 15 years was very strong - 10% of GDP. But if we look at the size of the foreign exchange reserves of the Bank of Russia, during the same period, they significantly weakened. Where the money gone? The only explanation that suggests itself - much of it settled in the offshore and became part of the property Russian oligarchs, Russian billionaire living in Russia, abroad. They are something, and gets the money derived from illegal trade balance - and are then taken into account in the Forbes list. Of course, Forbes could not calculate how much of that money is legal and what is not (laughs). Well, we have Forbes, which publishes this data. But it seems to me that much more important to have a government that does the job, and which in this case would be to ensure transparency in matters of who and what belongs - in terms of income, status, level of wealth. Today, Russia is the only country in which there is an income tax - and there are no statistics on how it is distributed by population groups with different income levels. It is impossible to understand, according to official data, as the income tax was paid by persons with income of 1 million rubles a year, from 10 million rubles per year, from 100 million tonnes, and. In all countries where there is personal income tax, such information can be obtained. In Russia, it is impossible to know. The government says it is fighting corruption - why, then, it does not publish this information? - Maybe it's the tax secret? - No way! We are not talking about the disclosure of personal data - only to aggregate data on different segments of the population. In all countries, except Russia, is an open information. I'd like to know why the Russian government does not publish it. After all, it raises suspicions that the income tax is levied not strict enough. The question arises why the inequality in Russia is so opaque. - By the way, you mentioned offshore. Currently, many governments are tightening regulation of offshore companies in accordance with the recommendations of the OECD. Will it solve the problems of inequality, about which you write? - I think that is not the solution. The OECD says the opposite, but it's not true, unfortunately. This has already happened many times: OECD and national governments declared that the problem is resolved. I believe that it can only be solved if all countries - at least in European countries, the United States and I hope that Russia, too - will automatically transfer information from their banking systems in an international register of holders of financial instruments. Technically, this is not something completely impossible - it is only a political problem. To conduct such an inventory could and private companies, as, for example, Clearstream or Eurostream in Europe or in the United States similar to the depositary, which keep traces of all international financial transactions. This is important not only to ensure that everything was under control, but also in terms of the economic system. To pay for services of an international registry could be financial institutions that conduct transactions with these financial instruments. I also believe that if you have a record of rights to financial instruments in such a register for a minimal fee, for you it is - a way to protect your property. A national tax authorities, this would allow to obtain information about the owners and share this information with colleagues from other countries. Recently published a book of Gabriel Zukmana Publishing University of Chicago - The Hidden Wealth of Nations («Hidden Wealth of Nations" - the name refers to the famous work of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"; Piketty wrote the foreword to the book Zukmana - Forbes), which describes in detail the proposal. That's what would settle the problem of the transparency of tax havens. - You write that the rapid economic development after World War II, when inequality declined, there was some "anomalies". But this growth was largely based on large-scale technological innovation. You do not believe in the possibility of new innovations in the current technological explosion? - No, no, I believe, but they are able to generate economic growth at 1-2% per year. The average annual growth rate of 5%, which we had in the glorious thirty years after the Second World War, historically belongs to the period of economic recovery in France, Germany, Japan, are far behind the United States as of 1945. That is why we have seen economic growth of 5-6% a year in Japan and 5% in Germany and France in the years 1950-170e. Now this does not happen again. The recovery of such growth now happening in China, but he stopped when China will reach the level of GDP per capita in the US, UK, Germany, France. In any case, the economic growth of 1-2% a year, thanks to new technology - it's better than zero economic growth in the EU between 2007 and 2015. I'm sure if we will be the best policy of economic recovery - with less austerity measures, with investments in new technology and research - we can achieve growth of 1-2% per year. Starting in the Industrial Revolution in the XVIII century, world economic growth stood at 1.6% per year. Under normal circumstances, if you do not take the post-war reconstruction, it is difficult to maintain stable economic growth at higher levels. - Your book has caused a lot of controversy. In particular, Financial Times wrote that you are making your conclusions on the basis of incorrect data. Value release "Capital in the XXI century" so widely that a discussion around your research has moved beyond academic circles? Is it true wide audience perceives your work? - Yes, the book was such a success that now everyone would like to write my - including those of people who had never been so open (smiles). Everything looks a bit strange. On the other hand, I now do not have to complain about the lack of attention. I am very grateful to the Financial Times for advertising, they made me their publication, but they look somewhat embarrassed - began with a criticism of the book, and ended up in 2014 gave me the award for best bestseller year. Generally, there are various data on this property [individual], and this information is not always sufficiently transparent. One of the topics of discussion in the Financial Time affected the collection of information about this property in the UK: according to an analysis of tax returns, income inequality there seemed much smaller than in the analysis lists that publishes your magazine. According to tax returns it turned out that in the UK there is no one who would own the state of more than 1 million pounds. But it's just incredible! And all the more strange that the Financial Times to protect their data, and she published the ratings of the largest state of the United Kingdom, stating the faster income growth in comparison with the richest middle class. It is enough to even just look at the growth in property prices in London not to believe those statements. Whatever it was, I am very glad that this book caused so much debate. The most important thing - the fact that different countries agree to open tax and financial data.

Many countries are not mentioned in the book, because access to the data at the time of writing there was no. Today, the site World Top Incomes Database every week there are new data from the new countries - such as Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Chile. In these countries, governments are under pressure to disclose information to journalists. I hope it will happen in Russia.

Original article: Thomas Piketty: "The question arises, why inequality in Russia is so opaque".