3 ms·
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 r
by 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 agoI 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.