this pikkety thing is rather amazing, but i don't think you can really claim something to be a classic of economic or political theory if the solutions are so primitive: a world tax on wealth. right, we're always taking every opportunity (climate change, say), to work toward a world state. why? because we are a nightmare species engaged in endless self-devourment. it might seem obvious that if wealth inequality is a problem, you need a power sufficient to redistribute. but this is just an abstraction: you are only beefing up the hierarchy you are trying to address. so really, say you put angela merkel or hillary clinton in charge of redistributing the world's wealth. here is who hillary is redistributing it on behalf of: goldman sachs. when we're not happy with her, we can turn it over to paul ryan and the oil industry. what would it take to teach you that constituting ever more intense hierarchies of political power is just a version of the very same problem you are using it to address? de blasio, warren, etc: you just can't be coming with that shit again. for real?
if there were a world redistribution scheme, it would be run by, say, dominique strauss-kahn, dedicated to blowing the rich and fucking the poor. or you could put it into the hands of a maoist, i guess, and start opening camps. anyway, it will be in the hands of someone(s), around whom a new or the old world power/money hiearchy will configure. just picture the staff/vehicles/offices/prestige of the world cash distribution institution. we'll all be put to tribute, and we'll all have to live all day with the insanely empty, self-serving jive that the institution will emit. all the children of privilege will want to do is enter this hierarchy and climb, etc.
