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 perh

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...