6 ms·

Your 2nd paragraph: merely your assertion ('freaking out' suggests you're not dispassionate about this). Plenty of rebuttals. A short one to be going on with he

by vixin 12y ago

Your 2nd paragraph: merely your assertion ('freaking out' suggests you're not dispassionate about this). Plenty of rebuttals. A short one to be going on with here: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/thomas-pikettys-latest-bright-idea http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/thomas-pikettys-late...

_delirium 12y ago
In what sense is the post you linked a rebuttal? It hints in one parenthetical sentence that the post author has some skepticism about the book's main conclusions (suggesting that Piketty looked insufficiently at consumption inequality), but the author doesn't provide any details.
davidw 12y ago
Here's another one: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141218/tyler-cowen/capital-punishment http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141218/tyler-cowen/ca... Ultimately a very political subject though, so I flagged it.
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  And a third. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/what-s-at-stake-in-the-tocqueville-piketty-debate.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/what-s-at-s...
- mjn 12y ago
  While we're at it, another (moderately detailed) critical review, from someone with the opposite political preferences: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twenty-first-century http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twent...
mattmanser 12y ago
I'm not sure it's ever worth reading something that contains something along the lines of: [author] has a habit of [baseless insult] It shows the blogger isn't professional and it's pointless reading it.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  The name of the blog itself suggests that the blog will not be impartial.
- zo1 12y ago
  "Piketty has a habit of not looking at consumption inequality which is the thing we might actually be worried about" The actual quote from the article. So people reading your [misleading comment] know that the author didn't actually put a [baseless insult] where you claim he did.
  - mattmanser 12y ago
    I'm not misleading, it's an accusation of incompetence, every single one of those kind of phrases is attempting to convey just one thing: hurr, durr, [attack_target]'s too stoopid/misleading you so everything he says is wrong.
    - zo1 12y ago
      So let me get this straight... According to you, having someone analyze and criticize your work, and state so is in fact actually saying "hurr, durr, [attack_target]'s too stoopid"? And yes, you are misleading. Because if I didn't actually go read that article and find the part you were complaining about I would have assumed an actual insult was where you claimed it was. Whereas, in fact, I found criticism, which the author attempts to justify/backup in the rest of the article. But you'd have us believe that that was all that was in the whole article. That's called misleading people; pretty much general dishonesty on your part.
vanderZwan 12y ago
> Ah, but that story doesn't work. For look at what Piketty is actually saying: the reduction in inequality wasn't as a result of unions, taxation, minimum wages or redistribution. It was simply that growth was faster than the increase in old wealth. This asserts that these two are entirely unrelated, which is jumping to conclusions at best. Also, a reduction in inequality is a redistribution of wealth by definition, something Piketty points out at the very beginning of his book.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by vixin 12y ago

_delirium 12y ago

In what sense is the post you linked a rebuttal? It hints in one parenthetical sentence that the post author has some skepticism about the book's main conclusions (suggesting that Piketty looked insufficiently at consumption inequality), but the author doesn't provide any details.

davidw 12y ago

Here's another one: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141218/tyler-cowen/capital-punishment http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141218/tyler-cowen/ca... Ultimately a very political subject though, so I flagged it.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
And a third. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/what-s-at-stake-in-the-tocqueville-piketty-debate.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/what-s-at-s...
mjn 12y ago
While we're at it, another (moderately detailed) critical review, from someone with the opposite political preferences: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twenty-first-century http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twent...

mattmanser 12y ago

I'm not sure it's ever worth reading something that contains something along the lines of: [author] has a habit of [baseless insult] It shows the blogger isn't professional and it's pointless reading it.

adamnemecek 12y ago
The name of the blog itself suggests that the blog will not be impartial.
zo1 12y ago
"Piketty has a habit of not looking at consumption inequality which is the thing we might actually be worried about" The actual quote from the article. So people reading your [misleading comment] know that the author didn't actually put a [baseless insult] where you claim he did.
- mattmanser 12y ago
  I'm not misleading, it's an accusation of incompetence, every single one of those kind of phrases is attempting to convey just one thing: hurr, durr, [attack_target]'s too stoopid/misleading you so everything he says is wrong.
  - zo1 12y ago
    So let me get this straight... According to you, having someone analyze and criticize your work, and state so is in fact actually saying "hurr, durr, [attack_target]'s too stoopid"? And yes, you are misleading. Because if I didn't actually go read that article and find the part you were complaining about I would have assumed an actual insult was where you claimed it was. Whereas, in fact, I found criticism, which the author attempts to justify/backup in the rest of the article. But you'd have us believe that that was all that was in the whole article. That's called misleading people; pretty much general dishonesty on your part.

vanderZwan 12y ago

> Ah, but that story doesn't work. For look at what Piketty is actually saying: the reduction in inequality wasn't as a result of unions, taxation, minimum wages or redistribution. It was simply that growth was faster than the increase in old wealth. This asserts that these two are entirely unrelated, which is jumping to conclusions at best. Also, a reduction in inequality is a redistribution of wealth by definition, something Piketty points out at the very beginning of his book.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]