4 ms·

> r cannot possibly be greater than g over the long term. Thomas Piketty would like to have a word with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twen

> r cannot possibly be greater than g over the long term. Thomas Piketty would like to have a word with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...

dcolkitt 5y ago
Piketty’s empirical research has been thoroughly refuted and found to have major gaps that it’s not even funny anymore. This is why he hasn’t won the Nobel, for research that if actually accurate would have otherwise been a shoe in for the prize. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/what-do-the-piketty-data-problems-really-mean.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/wh...
- pydry 5y ago
  >Piketty’s empirical research has been thoroughly refuted Your link is somebody arguing that perhaps the data doesnt look so bad if you squint at it in the right light. It's not a refutation. it's not even a rebuttal. It's basically disapproving FUD - "oh well if you pretend the 2008 housing bubble never happened things dont look quite so bad...". Um, ok? There's even a little plea at the end for the reader to "understand that this is all very complicated and hard to understand". How scientific. Of course, it is quite complicated sometimes and when he tries to break it down himself he gets himself in knots trying to defend inequality: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/desperate-effort-by-tyler-cowen-and-megan-mcardle-to-silence-discussion-about-income-inequality.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/desperate-effort-by-...
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    It's absolutely a rebuttal. If you're making a statistical/empirical claim, especially one that goes against orthodox economic theory, than robustness to the underlying assumptions is really important. Subsequently empirical research has found that Piketty's conclusions are extremely sensitive to the way he slices the historical data and the modeling parameters. At best that's evidence of an incompetent econometrician who doesn't understand the tools enough to perform the required robustness checks. At worse, it's evidence of data snooping to shoehorn the the results into a pre-determined hypothesis. But you don't have to take my word for it. The IMF itself performed an exhaustive robustness check and found that Piketty's conclusions simply don't hold up: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf

dcolkitt 5y ago

Piketty’s empirical research has been thoroughly refuted and found to have major gaps that it’s not even funny anymore. This is why he hasn’t won the Nobel, for research that if actually accurate would have otherwise been a shoe in for the prize. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/what-do-the-piketty-data-problems-really-mean.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/wh...

pydry 5y ago
>Piketty’s empirical research has been thoroughly refuted Your link is somebody arguing that perhaps the data doesnt look so bad if you squint at it in the right light. It's not a refutation. it's not even a rebuttal. It's basically disapproving FUD - "oh well if you pretend the 2008 housing bubble never happened things dont look quite so bad...". Um, ok? There's even a little plea at the end for the reader to "understand that this is all very complicated and hard to understand". How scientific. Of course, it is quite complicated sometimes and when he tries to break it down himself he gets himself in knots trying to defend inequality: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/desperate-effort-by-tyler-cowen-and-megan-mcardle-to-silence-discussion-about-income-inequality.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/desperate-effort-by-...
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  It's absolutely a rebuttal. If you're making a statistical/empirical claim, especially one that goes against orthodox economic theory, than robustness to the underlying assumptions is really important. Subsequently empirical research has found that Piketty's conclusions are extremely sensitive to the way he slices the historical data and the modeling parameters. At best that's evidence of an incompetent econometrician who doesn't understand the tools enough to perform the required robustness checks. At worse, it's evidence of data snooping to shoehorn the the results into a pre-determined hypothesis. But you don't have to take my word for it. The IMF itself performed an exhaustive robustness check and found that Piketty's conclusions simply don't hold up: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf