3 ms·

Piketty's data was already found to be fraudulent. He skewed it to push his own political worldview. https://www.ft.com/content/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144fe

Piketty's data was already found to be fraudulent. He skewed it to push his own political worldview. https://www.ft.com/content/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feab...

epistasis 10y ago
The Financial Times analysis has already been found to fraudulent, with skewed accusations so that they can push their own worldview: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/thomas-pikettys-capital http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/thomas-p... > But increasingly the battle seems to be one over methodological choices and data interpretation rather than major data errors or fabrications, as the initial FT work suggested.
- kardashev 10y ago
  Your article proves my point. He deliberately altered his data.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - epistasis 10y ago
    My article most certainly does not say that he "deliberately" altered his data, which I presume to mean towards his world view. You can't just lay out one side of the accusations then ignore the response entirely, especially when the economist is not backing up the FT's highly slanted take on it.
  - arjie 10y ago
    It's not saying that. The Economist refers to itself earlier¹ saying this: > All told, Mr Piketty is guilty of sloppiness (certainly in his notation), and perhaps of some errors. But there is little evidence, so far, to support the serious charge of cherry-picking statistics. Nor have his findings that wealth concentration is, once again, rising been fatally undermined. You claimed that he was being fraudulent, and this is saying the opposite. ¹ http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21603022-latest-controversy-around-thomas-pikettys-blockbuster-book-concerns-its http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21603022...
badsock 10y ago
You use the word fraudulent too lightly.

epistasis 10y ago

The Financial Times analysis has already been found to fraudulent, with skewed accusations so that they can push their own worldview: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/thomas-pikettys-capital http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/thomas-p... > But increasingly the battle seems to be one over methodological choices and data interpretation rather than major data errors or fabrications, as the initial FT work suggested.

kardashev 10y ago
Your article proves my point. He deliberately altered his data.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- epistasis 10y ago
  My article most certainly does not say that he "deliberately" altered his data, which I presume to mean towards his world view. You can't just lay out one side of the accusations then ignore the response entirely, especially when the economist is not backing up the FT's highly slanted take on it.
- arjie 10y ago
  It's not saying that. The Economist refers to itself earlier¹ saying this: > All told, Mr Piketty is guilty of sloppiness (certainly in his notation), and perhaps of some errors. But there is little evidence, so far, to support the serious charge of cherry-picking statistics. Nor have his findings that wealth concentration is, once again, rising been fatally undermined. You claimed that he was being fraudulent, and this is saying the opposite. ¹ http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21603022-latest-controversy-around-thomas-pikettys-blockbuster-book-concerns-its http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21603022...

badsock 10y ago

You use the word fraudulent too lightly.