Thomas Piketty got his sums wrong!

[RogerS]

What a hoot! #-o

Piketty's book - 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' - which plays to the populist zeitgeist of alleged wealth inequality has now been found to be full of errors!

You name it, he's done it. From transcription errors to incorrect formulae to downright cherry-picking of data to suit his 'theory' and in making up data for his spreadsheets.

Anyone expounding 'what a wonderful book' it is might like to look up the dictionary definition of 'gullible'. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No shitte, Sherlock!!

 

[Glynne]

Well there's my Saturday ruined!

 

[MMUK]

What a hoot! #-o

Piketty's book - 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' - which plays to the populist zeitgeist of alleged wealth inequality has now been found to be full of errors!

You name it, he's done it. From transcription errors to incorrect formulae to downright cherry-picking of data to suit his 'theory' and in making up data for his spreadsheets.

Anyone expounding 'what a wonderful book' it is might like to look up the dictionary definition of 'gullible'. :lol: :lol: :lol:

So would I be right in thinking that all our politicians and Bank of England execs abide by this bible?

 

[Mike.S]

You don't state your source for believing the book "has now been found to be full of errors" but I suspect it's the FT. If so, I found the criticism vague and by innuendo. A comparison with, for example, what politicians say in their manifesto and what they do would be much more enlightening :shock:

Perhaps I'm perverse but such a hatchet job tends to make me believe the book is accurate in it's overall theme (concentrated wealth/control), which displeases the 'wealthy elite'. You see similar criticisms raised by the 'MSM' (main stream media) whenever TPTB (the powers that be) are threatened e.g. UKIP being widely disparaged by the BBC in order to protect their paymasters (historically, the two main political parties).

 

[RogerS]

What a hoot! #-o

Piketty's book - 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' - which plays to the populist zeitgeist of alleged wealth inequality has now been found to be full of errors!

You name it, he's done it. From transcription errors to incorrect formulae to downright cherry-picking of data to suit his 'theory' and in making up data for his spreadsheets.

Anyone expounding 'what a wonderful book' it is might like to look up the dictionary definition of 'gullible'. :lol: :lol: :lol:

So would I be right in thinking that all our politicians and Bank of England execs abide by this bible?

Probably not...but it has been grasped by the Guardinista's as 'proof' of one of their soapboxes.

You don't state your source for believing the book "has now been found to be full of errors" but I suspect it's the FT. If so, I found the criticism vague and by innuendo. A comparison with, for example, what politicians say in their manifesto and what they do would be much more enlightening :shock:

Perhaps I'm perverse but such a hatchet job tends to make me believe the book is accurate in it's overall theme (concentrated wealth/control), which displeases the 'wealthy elite'. You see similar criticisms raised by the 'MSM' (main stream media) whenever TPTB (the powers that be) are threatened e.g. UKIP being widely disparaged by the BBC in order to protect their paymasters (historically, the two main political parties).

Not a hatchet job at all. You are correct in that it is the FT and there is a detailed breakdown inside with some examples from the spreadsheets to back up their critique. The corrected spreadsheets show that there has NOT been any massive divergence in wealth since 1970 ! A far cry from the hand-wringing on this subject that comes from certain quarters.

 

[Mike.S]

An alternative viewpoint is at the Economist, which includes this:

"Based on the information Mr Giles has provided so far, however, the analysis does not seem to support many of the allegations made by the FT, or the conclusion that the book's argument is wrong."

I suppose we might conclude that, like statistics, we can pick and choose what the truth is and what is lies or damned lies

 

[RogerS]

An alternative viewpoint is at the Economist, which includes this:

"Based on the information Mr Giles has provided so far, however, the analysis does not seem to support many of the allegations made by the FT, or the conclusion that the book's argument is wrong."

I suppose we might conclude that, like statistics, we can pick and choose what the truth is and what is lies or damned lies

You're quoting that out of context. The Economist (and one has to question where their politics lie) is guilty of the same alleged crime that the FT are supposed to have done. A headline grabbing statement. If you read the rest of the article it is not as clear cut as this headline grabber from The Economist would have one believe.

 

[KevM]

An alternative viewpoint is at the Economist, which includes this:

"Based on the information Mr Giles has provided so far, however, the analysis does not seem to support many of the allegations made by the FT, or the conclusion that the book's argument is wrong."

I suppose we might conclude that, like statistics, we can pick and choose what the truth is and what is lies or damned lies

You're quoting that out of context. The Economist (and one has to question where their politics lie) is guilty of the same alleged crime that the FT are supposed to have done. A headline grabbing statement. If you read the rest of the article it is not as clear cut as this headline grabber from The Economist would have one believe.

"The Economist (and one has to question where their politics lie)" - really, why, what do you know? The Economist is 50% owned by Financial Times Ltd, the remaining 50% of shareholders are pretty much what you might expect, investment companies, private banks, wealth funds, ...

 

[John Brown]

Surely you only have to look around you to see that wealth inequality is rising?
This whole business smells like a witch hunt to me.

A Pikketty Witch hunt.

 

[bugbear]

Surely you only have to look around you to see that wealth inequality is rising?
This whole business smells like a witch hunt to me.

A Pikketty Witch hunt.

I see what you did there

BugBear

 

[JimB]

It now seems that the FT critique failed to take account of changing methodology after 1974 as Piketty did.

 

[RogerS]

It now seems that the FT critique failed to take account of changing methodology after 1974 as Piketty did.

Do you have a link, Jim?

 

[Jacob]

No point in expecting the establishment to do anything but panic about Piketty and it's pleasing to see them getting into a lather and running round in circles. :lol: :lol:

If you want a critique the best place to look is to the left e.g:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/05/pike ... r-friends/

Quote: What has made Piketty’s arguments about wealth distribution so explosive is the central place he gives to the phenomenon of rentier inheritance. Which is the theme of another thread on here.

 

[JimB]

It now seems that the FT critique failed to take account of changing methodology after 1974 as Piketty did.

Do you have a link, Jim?

Picked it up here (sorry no pun intended)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... y-takedown

 

[bugbear]

Reasoned, nuanced discussion has broken out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/piketty- ... ity-2014-5

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm a bit bemused about all this fuss surrounding 'wealth inequality'.

Talking to my late grandmother (born 1905) about 'poverty' was interesting. She was brought up in Liverpool, and had some very vivid stories about Scotland Road and the surrounding area in the 1930s. When people talk about children in rags, barefoot and with little more to eat than jam sandwiches once a day, you'd better believe it - she saw it. A few unfortunate souls did actually starve to death. Wartime rationing actually inproved the diet for some people. Thank the Lord we don't have poverty to that extent now.

I really don't care whether Thomas Picketty's figures are selective, misinterpreted or outright rigged - most economic texts are written to push a particular political point of view, and I don't suppose this one's any different. Most people know that, and take the books accordingly. It gives the chattering classes and Islington bien-penseurs something to yadder about, that's all.

There may well be a small handful of spectacularly rich people about. So what. The more important point is the lot of those at the other end of the scale, and the very poorest are better off now than they were in the 1930s. There's no reason now why everybody should not have at least a roof of some sort over their heads, and food regularly. There's still a lot to do - improving job opportunities, education, and a whole host of other things, and governments of all stripe have tried in their different ways to improve things, either with direct handouts or by improving economic conditions for all. Both approaches can be criticised (and frequently are), but the intention of both is general improvement for all, thus giving the poorest an even break. It's also true that some human actions are self-destructive (drug addiction, for example) and helping people who end up in that condition is harder. We haven't really found answers to those sorts of problems, yet; whatever those answers turn out to be, I suspect they will only be economic to a very small degree.

Picketty's basic conclusion that wealth inequality is getting worse is both wrong and completely irrelevant. What is relevant is seeing that the poorest have sufficient to sustain life, and the chance to better it. Where the richest are doesn't matter a fig.

 

[RogerS]

It now seems that the FT critique failed to take account of changing methodology after 1974 as Piketty did.

Do you have a link, Jim?

Picked it up here (sorry no pun intended)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... y-takedown

Thanks, Jim.

Ah, the Guardian. That bastion of reasoned and unbiased thinking :-" :-" .....

 

[John Brown]

http://xkcd.com/980/
Some interesting data here.

This section in particular.

 

[Jacob]

.....
Picketty's basic conclusion that wealth inequality is getting worse is both wrong and completely irrelevant. .....

Phew that's a relief - we don't have to read the book then!
Glad to know that everything is really alright everywhere.
Now let us sing together: "All things bright and beautiful....- the rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate" etc