Income inequality tome based in part on errors and fabrications

[Anonymous]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/24/thomas-picketty-economics-data-errors

Thomas Piketty has lectured at the White House. His work is currently all the rage for touting income inequality as the wests most vexing issue.

However, the book may be based on fabrications and errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/24/thomas-picketty-economics-data-errors

Thomas Piketty has lectured at the White House. His work is currently all the rage for touting income inequality as the wests most vexing issue.

However, the book may be based on fabrications and errors.

The error seems to have affected calculations of inequality in Europe. But I don't think there is any serious group of people who believes that income and wealth inequality is not growing in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/24/thomas-picketty-economics-data-errors

Thomas Piketty has lectured at the White House. His work is currently all the rage for touting income inequality as the wests most vexing issue.

However, the book may be based on fabrications and errors.

The error seems to have affected calculations of inequality in Europe. But I don't think there is any serious group of people who believes that income and wealth inequality is not growing in the US.

Even moonbats seem to understand that income inequality is growing in the US. They probably even acknowledge that it's not good for society. The point of difference is about what to do about it... This isn't climate change -- there aren't exactly people who deny that income inequality is on the rise, or that it's a problem.

[Anonymous]

There are many, many influential people who would love to reject Picketty's theories (and some have, including fellow economists), since they demonstrate exactly the opposite of what the Western ruling classes have touted throughout the 20th and 21st century. To wit, that undeveloped as well as fully developed countries create more inequality than developing countries.

That is an extremely revolutionary concept. Of course it's not going to go down well! Of course it's going to attract counter-arguments and accusations of all kinds, including the ridiculous one of dishonesty. People are afraid of the practical consequences to their lifestyle if governments were to correct that inequality as suggested by Picketty! But of course they won't, since they would go down as well. It will take many years, maybe centuries, to reflect and effect change on current economic dynamics and markets.

Nevertheless, no one has ever produced such a complete and researched an explanation of why inequality is rising inexorably, except Picketty. I believe his idea of looking at tax records over decades is a very interesting method. As a scientist doing primary research, I know that all methods have drawbacks and limitations, some more than others - that doesn't mean that they are fundamentally unsound!

His book will go down in history as a very serious and respectable attempt at understanding the main problem of our times. Kudos to him.

[Anonymous]

OP,

Did we read the same article? The response to the FT article is hardly damning, the author himself hopes to improve upon the data, it's absolutely premature to cry "fabrications."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/24/thomas-picketty-economics-data-errors

[FruminousBandersnatch]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/24/thomas-picketty-economics-data-errors

Thomas Piketty has lectured at the White House. His work is currently all the rage for touting income inequality as the wests most vexing issue.

However, the book may be based on fabrications and errors.

According to the article:

The Economist concluded that "analysis does not seem to support many of the allegations made by the FT, or the conclusion that the book's argument is wrong".

The Economist is generally considered pretty good on these kinds of things.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, was going to post the same thing-- the Economist is hardly a bunch of loony lefties.