Who is Piketty and why does he matter? His 700-page book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” newly translated into English, is the best-selling book on Amazon. No largely academic book has ever achieved this distinction before.

Piketty’s central thesis is that the world has returned to its pre-World War I norms of extended periods of slow growth that will result in a further stratification of wealth in which the 0.1 percent fare better than everyone else. This is not because of the Occupy theory that the economy is rigged in an evil way to help them. It’s because of Piketty’s theory that during extended periods of slow growth, the mega rich will see their sophisticated investments in capital (stocks and other financial instruments) gain more share of a society’s wealth than everyone else accumulates through their earnings (salaries).

Many economists on the left love this thesis as providing a grand theoretical way to understand how the world has come to be the way it is — a way they don’t like. Paul Krugman leads the way, proclaiming, “This is a book that will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics.”

It’s gotten respectful reviews from some free-market economists, and some pretty good takedowns, starting with Tyler Cowen’s essay. (Here’s a round-up of links.)

But whether you think it’s hooey or too high-falutin’ or just arcane, if you’re a believer in Proposition 13, Piketty’s emergence gives you fabulous ammo with which to shoot back at the George Skeltons, Peter Schrags and Harold Meyersons — all the lefty pundits who say it is the prime evil force driving California’s downfall. Piketty says states that have property taxes that penalize homowners if their homes increase in value are imposing what amounts to “America’s secret middle-class tax.”

Property taxes (outside of CA) a ‘secret middle-class tax’

This is from a Matt Yglesias piece in Vox:

“Piketty’s big point about the United States is that we actually do engage in substantial wealth taxation in this country. We call it property taxes, and they’re primarily paid to state and local governments. Total receipts amount to about 3 percent of national income. The burden of the tax falls largely on middle-class families, for whom a home is likely to be far and away the most valuable asset that they own. Rich people, of course, own expensive houses (sometimes two or three of them) but also accumulate considerable wealth in the stock market and elsewhere where, unlike homeowners’ equity, it can evade taxation.

“Piketty also observes that the current property tax system is curiously innocent of the significance of debt. A homeowner is taxed on the face-value of his house, whether he owns it outright or owes more to the bank than the house is worth.”

So the next time you face Prop 13 critics, call them “middle-class haters,” and say that’s the view of Paul Krugman’s favorite economist, too. If Piketty’s PR boomlet continues, you can just use his name and skip the Krugman framing.

With or without Piketty, noting that homes are the single biggest repository of reliable wealth for most middle-class families is a strong defense. But if Piketty proves to be the enduring “rock star” of the progressive community that many lefties think, that gives this pro-13 argument way more juice.

Doubt Piketty is the big deal that I say he is? Today’s NYT opinion page has both Krugman and David Brooks weighing in on his book.

Then there’s Nathan Fletcher.

The former San Diego assemblyman went from being a GOP true-believer candidate for mayor in early March 2012 to an independent disdainful of both parties in late March 2012 to a Democrat who sang his new party’s praises in May of this year.

He was a devout GOPer when he was trying to win the party’s nomination for mayor. When the nomination went to Carl DeMaio, he became a devout both-parties-stink guy championed by The New York Times’ David Brooks. When that ploy failed and he finished a distant third in the June mayoral primary, Fletcher realized he couldn’t win as an independent and he couldn’t go back to the GOP. That left him pretty much no choice but to become a Democrat. The rapidity with which his political views changed simply make it impossible, a la Gramm or Chaffee, to see his shift as a principled evolution or as a reflection of the reality that national parties change as time goes by.

The politics of convenience may pay off grandly for this chameleon

Instead, Fletcher’s “evolution” seemed the epitome of the politics of convenience. (Or, to use a mid-20th-century reference, Fletcher seems like an affable political version of Sammy Glick.)

But incredibly enough, it seems to be working. As Democrats watch scandal-scarred San Diego Mayor Bob Filner flail away, many are beginning to think about who to back in a special election or a recall election.

There are obvious candidates — City Council President Todd Gloria; former state Sen. Christine Kehoe; former Assemblywoman Lori Saldana — who have long personal ties to Lorena Gonzalez, the local union kingpin who recently became an Assembly member. But by several accounts, Gonzalez is pushing hard for Fletcher.

As powerful as Gonzalez may be, however, it is hard to see Fletcher — a professed Ronald Reagan lover until 16 months ago — getting much institutional Democratic support.

So what would he need to overcome this antipathy? Money.

A Clinton ‘bundler’ — and Fletcher fan — in La Jolla

Which might be no problem for Nathan the Chameleon. This is from the San Diego Reader.

“Christine Forester, listed by Newsweek magazine as the nation’s second biggest “bundler” of contributions to the 2008 campaign of President Barack Obama, having collected more than $500,000 from a variety of friends and associates in that year alone, is spearheading a behind-the-scenes effort to draft newly minted Democrat and ex-GOP Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher for mayor if incumbent Bob Filner falters in his effort to remain in office.”

This is getting interesting. Especially since DeMaio’s emails the past few days sure seem like hints that he is considering another run for mayor instead of his expected  2014 House race against weak first-termer Scott Peters, D-San Diego.

Could we see DeMaio vs. Fletcher again? So soon?

Maybe.

But maybe we’ll also see more expedient party switching. Nathan Fletcher hopped around in a way that made Arlen Specter’s political rebranding seem saintly and tarnish-free — and apparently without consequence!

By John Seiler

Cue the great Byrds song, “I Wasn’t Born to Follow” from one of my favorite movies, “Easy Rider”:

I bring that up because The New York Times’ featured “conservative,” David Brooks, whom I knew briefly in Washington, D.C. back in 1987, writes a column today entitled, “The Follower Problem.”

Brooks is upset that we get crummy leaders because we’re not good followers. Brooks:

“Maybe before we can build great monuments to leaders we have to relearn the art of following. Democratic followership is also built on a series of paradoxes: that we are all created equal but that we also elevate those who are extraordinary; that we choose our leaders but also have to defer to them and trust their discretion; that we’re proud individuals but only really thrive as a group, organized and led by just authority.

“I don’t know if America has a leadership problem; it certainly has a followership problem. Vast majorities of Americans don’t trust their institutions. That’s not mostly because our institutions perform much worse than they did in 1925 and 1955, when they were widely trusted. It’s mostly because more people are cynical and like to pretend that they are better than everything else around them. Vanity has more to do with rising distrust than anything else.”        

Actually, it’s “mostly because” our “institutions” are much bigger and costlier than they were in 1925 and 1955. They also are more remote, with centralized “federal” authority replacing state and local authority almost everywhere.

In 1925, the federal portion of the economy was around 4 percent; now it’s 25 percent. The California state government then was around 2 percent of the economy; now it’s 6 percent.

In the last 10 years, federal pay, perks and pensions have grown to become twice their equivalents in the private sector. This occurred under a Republican president, George W. Bush, and a Democratic president, Barack Obama. During the same period, Republicans and Democrats also traded back and forth dominating Congress. So it was a bipartisan elevation of federal functionaries to commissar status.

Brooks concludes:

“To have good leaders you have to have good followers — able to recognize just authority, admire it, be grateful for it and emulate it. Those skills are required for good monument building, too.”

Well, I’m not following the rotters who “lead” us now. If our “leaders” lead by reducing government back to what it was in 1925, then I’ll reconsider.

Until then, my attitude will remain that of Jack Nicholson’s character: