5 ms·

It is shocking that people continue to cite Piketty. His results have been more or less shot down completely - his measurements are unstable (taken), and insofa

It is shocking that people continue to cite Piketty. His results have been more or less shot down completely - his measurements are unstable (taken), and insofar as he has shown r > g, this is primarily due to middle class household wealth (rognlie). Further, his results are only within country and don't apply globally (c.f. Milanovic). But his results are just so convenient and sound so cool. How can we discard them for something as silly as being totally wrong?

deyan 10y ago
Is that actually true? In my research, i found that a number of scholars (including the ones you cite) critiqued aspects of Piketty's theory, but their papers read like either additions or clarifications. Further, the results are definitely not "convenient" - indeed, they go against a lot of prior research, and Piketty has done a remarkable job being open with both the data he uses and responding to others' arguments. He has certainly started an important scholarly debate. If I'm wrong, mind citing the correct sources?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I agree with you that the mood affiliation of the field agrees with what you say. Taleb agrees with you as well. I'm also agreeing with Taleb that the specific facts don't support Piketty, yet no one even discusses them. They just appeal to the zeitgeist. Somehow Piketty can survive Taleb and Rognlie knocking down what he asserts to be his core claims, as well as Milanovic showing that his work is hopelessly myopic (Piketty mentions Balzac and Jane Austen more than China and India). Specific facts don't matter, only the mood does.
emmelaich 10y ago
He is citing Piketty for his flaws, not to praise him.
pdog 10y ago
The central thesis of Piketty's Capital[1] is that inequality is a core feature of capitalism. He backs this with meticulous research[2] into centuries of wealth, income, and tax data. You can argue about what is the "right" level of inequality or with the policy recommendations (that massive government interventionism via a global tax on wealth is required). However, the results and data are solid. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491591617 https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-P... [2]: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014FiguresTablesLinks.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Fig...
- skylan_q 10y ago
  "capitalism" That word is the problem. It means something different for every person. To you it means one thing, to him it means another. When people criticize capitalism their arguments are always convincing because you project your own negative connotations into the word.
  - sosodaft 10y ago
    Well said. It always pains me to see people criticising capitalism for easy points, when despite its flaws it has brought us an age of unprecedented equality and prosperity. That's not to say it's necessarily the best "system" for the future, but tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive.
    - PavlovsCat 10y ago
      > unprecedented equality Right. Which is why when I kill someone, I go to jail, and when George Bush attacks a country, the crickets chirp. > tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive. More importantly, it's a straw man. edit: if anyone is seriously debating that's a straw man, use your words.
      - bprieto 10y ago
        unprecedented equality != perfect equality Unprecedented equality means that in a capitalistic (Western) society almost everybody eats a hot meal everyday day, has free time to enjoy, has an assortment of clothes, furniture and things, has a place to live with running water and electricity and appliances that run with said electricity. All things that only the richest people could dream of enjoying just a couple of centuries ago.
        PavlovsCat 10y ago
        Okay, and what about equality before the law and other such things? "Be happy you have a home, shut up", or what?
jrochkind1 10y ago
Cites for critique of Picketty's methodology please?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Read the article. Taleb mentions them.
Analemma_ 10y ago
You're definitely not getting away without providing a citation for that. In the couple months after Capital was published, I saw a couple attempts at refutation, including one in the Financial Times, but Piketty responded to all of them with convincing rebuttals. I would like to see this "complete shoot-down" you claim exists.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Taleb's article specifically cites articles which prove mathematically that Piketty methodology would show rising inequality among the super rich even if it didn't exist. Did you even read it? I will provide others when I'm not on mobile. You can also Google "Piketty rognlie" and it'll be near the top.
  - vannevar 10y ago
    Taleb talks about a couple of articles he wrote, but unfortunately does not cite them, nor does he provide any details from them that would support your assertion that they "prove" anything, mathematically or otherwise. And none of the third-party articles linked from the footnotes contains any such critique of Piketty.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      You're right, Piketty is correct because Taleb did not format his citations in the manner you desire.
      - vannevar 10y ago
        Not what I said. I didn't say Piketty was correct, only that your assertion was unsupported by the evidence you presented. FYI, I believe this is the paper you were referring to: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1791.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1791.pdf The gist of the paper as far as I can tell is that when sampling fat-tailed distributions, it's easy to 'miss' outliers on the tail that would significantly change the average observed. So in Piketty's historical analysis, the rise in inequality might simply be due to better samples as data becomes easier to get. If you actually read the book, though, it's not clear that data became uniformly better over time---there's some indication that recent data actually became worse. It's also clear from the book that Piketty's conclusion wasn't based solely on aggregations of equality data, but also historical returns on capital that would not be subject to Taleb's bias. In short, at best, Taleb offers an alternative explanation for the historical inequality data. More of a caveat than a refutation.

deyan 10y ago

Is that actually true? In my research, i found that a number of scholars (including the ones you cite) critiqued aspects of Piketty's theory, but their papers read like either additions or clarifications. Further, the results are definitely not "convenient" - indeed, they go against a lot of prior research, and Piketty has done a remarkable job being open with both the data he uses and responding to others' arguments. He has certainly started an important scholarly debate. If I'm wrong, mind citing the correct sources?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I agree with you that the mood affiliation of the field agrees with what you say. Taleb agrees with you as well. I'm also agreeing with Taleb that the specific facts don't support Piketty, yet no one even discusses them. They just appeal to the zeitgeist. Somehow Piketty can survive Taleb and Rognlie knocking down what he asserts to be his core claims, as well as Milanovic showing that his work is hopelessly myopic (Piketty mentions Balzac and Jane Austen more than China and India). Specific facts don't matter, only the mood does.

emmelaich 10y ago

He is citing Piketty for his flaws, not to praise him.

pdog 10y ago

The central thesis of Piketty's Capital[1] is that inequality is a core feature of capitalism. He backs this with meticulous research[2] into centuries of wealth, income, and tax data. You can argue about what is the "right" level of inequality or with the policy recommendations (that massive government interventionism via a global tax on wealth is required). However, the results and data are solid. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491591617 https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-P... [2]: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014FiguresTablesLinks.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Fig...

skylan_q 10y ago
"capitalism" That word is the problem. It means something different for every person. To you it means one thing, to him it means another. When people criticize capitalism their arguments are always convincing because you project your own negative connotations into the word.
- sosodaft 10y ago
  Well said. It always pains me to see people criticising capitalism for easy points, when despite its flaws it has brought us an age of unprecedented equality and prosperity. That's not to say it's necessarily the best "system" for the future, but tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    > unprecedented equality Right. Which is why when I kill someone, I go to jail, and when George Bush attacks a country, the crickets chirp. > tearing it down because it is the Establishment and tearing down the Establishment is cool is counterproductive. More importantly, it's a straw man. edit: if anyone is seriously debating that's a straw man, use your words.
    - bprieto 10y ago
      unprecedented equality != perfect equality Unprecedented equality means that in a capitalistic (Western) society almost everybody eats a hot meal everyday day, has free time to enjoy, has an assortment of clothes, furniture and things, has a place to live with running water and electricity and appliances that run with said electricity. All things that only the richest people could dream of enjoying just a couple of centuries ago.
      - PavlovsCat 10y ago
        Okay, and what about equality before the law and other such things? "Be happy you have a home, shut up", or what?

jrochkind1 10y ago

Cites for critique of Picketty's methodology please?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Read the article. Taleb mentions them.

Analemma_ 10y ago

You're definitely not getting away without providing a citation for that. In the couple months after Capital was published, I saw a couple attempts at refutation, including one in the Financial Times, but Piketty responded to all of them with convincing rebuttals. I would like to see this "complete shoot-down" you claim exists.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Taleb's article specifically cites articles which prove mathematically that Piketty methodology would show rising inequality among the super rich even if it didn't exist. Did you even read it? I will provide others when I'm not on mobile. You can also Google "Piketty rognlie" and it'll be near the top.
- vannevar 10y ago
  Taleb talks about a couple of articles he wrote, but unfortunately does not cite them, nor does he provide any details from them that would support your assertion that they "prove" anything, mathematically or otherwise. And none of the third-party articles linked from the footnotes contains any such critique of Piketty.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    You're right, Piketty is correct because Taleb did not format his citations in the manner you desire.
    - vannevar 10y ago
      Not what I said. I didn't say Piketty was correct, only that your assertion was unsupported by the evidence you presented. FYI, I believe this is the paper you were referring to: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1791.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1791.pdf The gist of the paper as far as I can tell is that when sampling fat-tailed distributions, it's easy to 'miss' outliers on the tail that would significantly change the average observed. So in Piketty's historical analysis, the rise in inequality might simply be due to better samples as data becomes easier to get. If you actually read the book, though, it's not clear that data became uniformly better over time---there's some indication that recent data actually became worse. It's also clear from the book that Piketty's conclusion wasn't based solely on aggregations of equality data, but also historical returns on capital that would not be subject to Taleb's bias. In short, at best, Taleb offers an alternative explanation for the historical inequality data. More of a caveat than a refutation.