5 ms·

I know it's fashionable both to lionize Piketty and criticize him as a huckster. But he did play really fast and loose with statistics in his best-seller.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Isn't that pretty much the standard in economics? Whatever I read about economics they all seem give data their own convenient spin instead of admitting "I don't know".
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  There seems to be a fine line between politics and economics.
- yborg 8y ago
  Isn't that pretty much the standard in any research? It's pretty pointless to publish a bunch of data and state as your conclusion "gee, I don't know what any of that meant, lol". As long as you aren't actually making up data to fit your thesis (which surely happens) or completely ignoring data contrary to your thesis, I don't see an issue. If someone doesn't agree with it, they can publish their own argument with supporting data.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    In physics there is a lot of data that shows that there must be something other than regular matter but physicists still admit that they have no clue what it is. I am not an economist but from what I read economists show the data and then always have an explanation for it. Maybe they should stop at the data?
- thanatropism 8y ago
  No, no. I don't mean that he forces the interpretation of data. That's par for the course. He makes numerous data gathering errors that all seem to make his conclusion stronger. Example: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/media/FT23052014c.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/media/FT230520...
georgeecollins 8y ago
Source?
Invictus0 8y ago
What in particular are you referring to?
- thanatropism 8y ago
  Piketty's "Capital" has numerous data gathering/consolidation errors that always seem to point in the direction of making his conclusions stronger. His theoretical remarks are so flippantly nonsensical (the difference between growth and interest rates being a secular gravity-like driver of inequality) that the data issues come across as bad faith. A number of these were caught by the financial press at the same time.

maxxxxx 8y ago

Isn't that pretty much the standard in economics? Whatever I read about economics they all seem give data their own convenient spin instead of admitting "I don't know".

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
There seems to be a fine line between politics and economics.
yborg 8y ago
Isn't that pretty much the standard in any research? It's pretty pointless to publish a bunch of data and state as your conclusion "gee, I don't know what any of that meant, lol". As long as you aren't actually making up data to fit your thesis (which surely happens) or completely ignoring data contrary to your thesis, I don't see an issue. If someone doesn't agree with it, they can publish their own argument with supporting data.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  In physics there is a lot of data that shows that there must be something other than regular matter but physicists still admit that they have no clue what it is. I am not an economist but from what I read economists show the data and then always have an explanation for it. Maybe they should stop at the data?
thanatropism 8y ago
No, no. I don't mean that he forces the interpretation of data. That's par for the course. He makes numerous data gathering errors that all seem to make his conclusion stronger. Example: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/media/FT23052014c.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/media/FT230520...

georgeecollins 8y ago

Source?

Invictus0 8y ago

What in particular are you referring to?

thanatropism 8y ago
Piketty's "Capital" has numerous data gathering/consolidation errors that always seem to point in the direction of making his conclusions stronger. His theoretical remarks are so flippantly nonsensical (the difference between growth and interest rates being a secular gravity-like driver of inequality) that the data issues come across as bad faith. A number of these were caught by the financial press at the same time.