Branko Milanovic

All true.

They also wrote a biography of Andropov and super interesting book contrasting Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, both of whom they knew very well.

Thus their writings combine archival knowledge and events as experienced and lived by real people.
In the 1970s, I read their "Let History Judge". It was published before Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago".

A very sad news.
Roy Medvedev died yesterday in Moscow.
Perhaps of all historians of Stalinism I liked Roy and Zhores Medvedev the most. Like Tacitus, they had access to documents, but they also had access to people who lived under Stalin & Khrushchev etc. (including their family) & themselves.

A *super* interesting review by Jan-Luiten van Zanden of Greif, Mokyr & Tabellini new book "Two paths to prosperity: Culture and Institutions in Europe and China, 1000–2000".
eh.net/book_reviews...

Two Great Transformations Part I: A review of Branko Milanovic

An excellent review of "The Great Global Transformation" by Nicholas Mulder. I read it last weekend, but today I was able to print it and read it more carefully, Excellent.
weltinnenpolitik.substack.com/p/two-great-...

How to Apply We are now welcoming applications from students wishing to start in the Fall 2026 semester. The deadline to apply is July 15, 2026. To be considered for admission, you must have: We prefer…

The John Jay economics program (where I teach) is accepting applications for Fall 2026 for our MA program. We are one of the only programs in the country focused on radical political economy, at a public school in the heart of Manhattan. For more information, see johnjayeconomics.org/how-to-apply/

scatter plot of income and population by class in france in the time of Louis XV

Scatter plots are cool! Inspired by @brankomilan.bsky.social's excellent *Visions of Inequality* , I drew some as alternative ways of visualising historic #econsky social tables of income and population by class. Blog post, with #rstats code, at freerangestats.info/blog/2026/02... 1/n

Este post le viene al pelo

Well, @brankomilan.bsky.social’s insomnia has produced a positive externality for the rest of us (undoubtedly with net positive benefit!)—a taxonomy of economists working on inequality and redistribution, neatly captured in a diagram by @rszarfenberg.bsky.social:

buff.ly/BQVW7BF

La nouvelle grande transformation  | Le Grand Continent En proposant une critique du dernier grand livre de l'économiste Branko Milanovic, Andrea Capussela montre comment une analyse réaliste des origines politiques et économiques de notre temps pourrait o...

'les élites américaines avaient deux options pour se protéger : « changer les règles de la mondialisation afin qu’elle ne touche plus les classes moyennes » ou « augmenter leurs revenus en taxant davantage les riches ». Elles ont choisi la première option'
legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2026/02/1...

The main argument in my book is the 'synergy between Schumpeterian theory and republican theory. The former indicts the informal political power of incumbent and superstar firms in the name of innovation, the latter in the name of liberty.'
www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?b...

A pedagogical tax Why the rich should be Uber-taxed

My today's Substack:
A pedagogical tax
Why the rich should be uber-taxed
branko2f7.substack.com/p/a-pedagogi...

📢 New III WP:

This paper provides a methodological contribution to the study of historical income inequality by examining the construction and use of social tables for the 19th century.

@brankomilan.bsky.social @mgzl.bsky.social @ggabbuti.bsky.social @philerfurth.bsky.social

🔗 buff.ly/WUZKIMg

Different Stone Centers (there are almost ten by now) also contain ideologically different economists. But I think that the groups A and E are under-represented and group D (reflecting the current ideological bent of the profession) is the most numerous.

Impeccable, unacceptable portrait of our world My review of Branko Milanovic's 'The Great Global Transformation'

Devo dire la verità: @brankomilan.bsky.social non mi garba molto, dice cose che non voglio sentire, gli piace distruggere e a me costruire... ma quasi sempre ha ragione lui.
Qui la recensione del suo ultimo libro a cura di @andreacapussela.bsky.social
andreacapussela.substack.com/p/impeccable...

Merci, Guillaume!

I know that one can combine several types. But I tried to present clear types. C are radical redistributionists in the FDR style: they squeeze capitalists but they do not necessarily touch the mode of production & its internal set-up.

Groups A, C and E are radical. Groups B and D are conservative (in its literal sense).

They would use strong anti-monopoly measures to reduce income inequality. They are radical pro-capitalists fighting businesses. They are very close to the original Adam Smith.

Group E are partisans of capitalist free competition. They are unhappy with the current system of businessman's capitalism that creates monopolies, conglomerates, and generally uses economic power to wrest concessions, cheat, and not pay taxes.

the problem is that what is on "paper" is often subverted or ignored by the rich. They could accept to increase some taxes, but moderately. They are Obamists.

Group D is a majority group in economics. They are conservative liberals. They would do everything the same but are unhappy with ability of the rich (they do not like the term capitalist) to evade or avoid taxes. For them capitalism as it is on "paper" is an ideal system;

Group C are radical redistributionists. They would leave relations of production and even pre-distribution more or less as it is, but they would hit capitalists by high taxes. Hit them really hard. They are a radical wing of group D. They like FDR.

Group B focuses on pre-redistribution. They leave capitalist relations of production formally the same, but they want to increase the minimum wage, empower trade unions, improve health insurance provided by companies, limit duration of work. They are meliorists like Fabians.

to make workers more important in managing companies thereby changing distribution "internally". They are the most radical b/c they change the nature of capitalism in production.

Group A are "socialists", or people who want to change power & distribution within the key locus, locus of production. Some want to give decision-making power to workers only; others want to constraint the power of shareholders,

Last night I could not sleep so I created a taxonomy of people who work on inequality/redistribution. For each of these groups I have names of economists but it could be too controversial. So I decided to stay with the taxonomy only. (You can fill in the names.)

Inside a Detention Site at the Heart of Europe’s Harsh New Approach to Immigration

"Special home for foreigners". If Europe wants to stand as a liberal alternative to Trumpian ethno-nationalism, it had better not follow the same policies as he does. Yet it does.

Thank you, David!