5 ms·

FT was quick to compare Piketty to Reinhart-Rogoff. Felt like a hit piece.

by guelo 12y ago

enraged_camel 12y ago
You have to understand that FT is a conservative news organization. If you think about their primary audience (wealthy businesspeople), it was no surprise that they tried to take a shit on Piketty's work.
- rosser 12y ago
  Exactly. I'm still deeply surprised that the overwhelming response to the original FT piece wasn't basically "Biased people are biased."
  - alexeisadeski3 12y ago
    Would that also be a suitable response to "Capital in the 21st Century"? If not, why not?
    - rosser 12y ago
      I'm not convinced that Piketty had an agenda in writing the book. It's unambiguous that the FT editor did.
      - seldon 12y ago
        "He proposes a global tax on wealth to help address the problem of inequality today"[0] "Mr. Piketty is a well-known public intellectual in France. He writes a column in the left-wing daily Libération and served as a top economic adviser to the Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal in the 2007 election"[1] I exhort you to read up on Piketty and reconsider your position. [0]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty [1]:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579575890128783848 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230348030...
        rosser 12y ago
        The words "tax" and "inequality" each appear once, in completely different paragraphs, in the NYT article cited by the Wikipedia entry on Piketty for the sentence you're quoting, and "global" zero times. Your second quote is an ad hominem, specifically "guilt by association" — and comes from the WSJ, not exactly known for its own unbiased stance on capitalism.
        seldon 12y ago
        I quoted Wikipedia as it appears you have not read the book: you must of course read all the citations for the paragraph. Had you been interested in actually considering the validity of the sentence I quoted, as opposed to nitpicking, you would have found that the 2nd citation refers you to http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 where you can find a table of contents[0]. Chapter 15 - "A Global Tax on Capital" stands out. Your ad hominem claim is ironic. You posit that it is "unambiguous that the FT editor [holds an agenda]". You further posit that the WSJ is biased. Yet when Piketty "writes a column in the left-wing daily Libération and served as a top economic adviser to the Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal in the 2007 election[1]" you are not convinced that he holds an agenda. Either you too are guilty of ad hominem, "specifically "guilt by association"", or you are logically incoherent, subscribing to double standards. Your political prothezlysing - and downvoting - is not conducive to the discussion. Again, I exhort you to read up on Piketty and reconsider your position. [0]:http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Contents.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Con... [1]:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579575890128783848 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230348030...
        rosser 12y ago
        First of all, I'm not proselytizing. I've never once in this discussion stated, or even alluded to my political opinions, let alone tried to convince anyone else of them. I offered opinions about the politics of the editorial staff of both the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal, neither of which should be terribly controversial, and both of which are utterly orthogonal to my beliefs; and I offered an opinion about whether Piketty wrote his book in service of a pre-existing agenda, as distinct from a belief. That, too, is irrelevant to my politics. Second, my claim of ad hominem isn't "ironic" in light of my other statements. Nowhere did I say the positions of the FT or WSJ editors were wrong; I said they were biased. One can be biased and correct, just as one can be biased and wrong. I don't think it's much of a stretch to posit that the author of your WSJ quote meant it to convey something about how correct Piketty could possibly be, because "socialist". Note, too, that the quote doesn't say Piketty, himself, is a socialist; it just says that he keeps their company (or, more specifically, that they — but mostly, just this one, really, really icky one — keep his): guilt by association. Contrarily, I'm not saying they're wrong because anything; I'm not saying they're wrong at all. I'm saying, "Capitalists don't like something that points out flaws in capitalism. Film at 11." Inferring anything further is projection and fabrication. Sorry, but I'm not your straw man. Finally, if there was any downvoting, it wasn't on my part. You can't downvote direct replies. EDIT: And I have the book already. It's in my queue. I just had to buy another bookshelf, however, so you can probably guess how deep that queue is.
- spindritf 12y ago
  This is the laziest of criticisms. Don't like someone's argument? Don't even bother reading through, let's check who sponsored the study, or maybe the author is a hypocrite, or at least cheats on his wife, and anyway, it's racist. You could just as easily dismiss Piketty: Oh, he's just some French lefty (cheese eating...), of course he'll conclude that inequality is the problem and we need to tax wealth.
  - joe_the_user 12y ago
    If that was the criticism, yes, it would be lazy. But if you listen, there was no "this was poor because it was in ft". It was more like Person1: "that seemed like a poor piece" Person2: "It's not surprising it was poor, ft is often biased" No one claimed that appearing in ft proved anything.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    >>This is the laziest of criticisms. Don't like someone's argument? Don't even bother reading through, let's check who sponsored the study, or maybe the author is a hypocrite, or at least cheats on his wife, and anyway, it's racist. I read the FT article when it appeared. What seemed remarkable was that, even though it took Piketty years to compile and work with the data, it took the FT editor weeks to come up with a rebuttal [1]. That by itself should tell you something. [1]Unless he read the original French version from last year, but that's doubtful because the book became popular (and therefore dangerous to the upper class) only after being translated to English.
    - spindritf 12y ago
      It tells me nothing. Finding mistakes is always easier than writing the book containing them. And the list of those supposed mistakes is public[1], behind only a registration wall. Piketty either made them, or not. They either substantially change the results, or not. You don't need to make guesses based on timing. Perhaps Chris Giles is motivated by pleasing his "wealthy businessmen" audience. Perhaps he spent sleepless nights pouring over the text to find something, anything. Maybe he even cheats on his wife. But so what? [1] http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/ http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-wi...
- Tycho 12y ago
  Well, they do have their reputation to protect. If it was just an opinion piece on their blog site, that would be one thing, but the FT, conservative or not, has thrown this onto the front page and is the work of one of their chief editors no less. They have 'skin in the game.'
sd8f9iu 12y ago
I recommend reading what Paul Krugman has to say on the FT piece: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-wrong/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-w...
- alexeisadeski3 12y ago
  I recommend reading what Tyler Cowen has to say on the FT piece: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/what-do-the-piketty-data-problems-really-mean.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/wha...
- SilasX 12y ago
  How so? Having read it, can you explain his points and their importance so readers can know it's worth reading further?
  - bermanoid 12y ago
    In math, there are many "proofs" that 1 = 2. Going through them and picking them apart is a useful exercise, and can expose misunderstandings and mistakes that are important to be aware of. But at the end of the day, nobody really seriously considers that 1 actually equals 2, it's too at odds with everything else we know. This article is saying that it's possible the FT piece found a valid nitpick, but that the conclusion they're fighting against (rising wealth inequality) is backed up far too strongly by other independent sources for a nitpick to damage it at all.
gammarator 12y ago
The most egregious part to me was the following: "A 2 is added because the number wasn't high enough — it didn't seem to fit what he wanted to show in his charts, so he just added 2 to it. There was quite a lot of this sort of thing in his spreadsheets." The FT author is claiming Piketty knowingly falsified the data here "to fit what he wanted to show." That's a major accusation, and Giles clearly cannot know it is true. The Economist agrees: "But while some of the data and adjustments in the spreadsheets lack adequate documentation, Mr Giles does not have the evidence to justify the implication that figures are drawn "from thin air". Data fabrication is a serious charge to make, and I am surprised Mr Giles would allege it without clearer proof."

FT was quick to compare Piketty to Reinhart-Rogoff. Felt like a hit piece.

by guelo 12y ago

FT was quick to compare Piketty to Reinhart-Rogoff. Felt like a hit piece.

You have to understand that FT is a conservative news organization. If you think about their primary audience (wealthy businesspeople), it was no surprise that they tried to take a shit on Piketty's work.

rosser 12y ago
Exactly. I'm still deeply surprised that the overwhelming response to the original FT piece wasn't basically "Biased people are biased."
- alexeisadeski3 12y ago
  Would that also be a suitable response to "Capital in the 21st Century"? If not, why not?
  - rosser 12y ago
    I'm not convinced that Piketty had an agenda in writing the book. It's unambiguous that the FT editor did.
    - seldon 12y ago
      "He proposes a global tax on wealth to help address the problem of inequality today"[0] "Mr. Piketty is a well-known public intellectual in France. He writes a column in the left-wing daily Libération and served as a top economic adviser to the Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal in the 2007 election"[1] I exhort you to read up on Piketty and reconsider your position. [0]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty [1]:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579575890128783848 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230348030...
      - rosser 12y ago
        The words "tax" and "inequality" each appear once, in completely different paragraphs, in the NYT article cited by the Wikipedia entry on Piketty for the sentence you're quoting, and "global" zero times. Your second quote is an ad hominem, specifically "guilt by association" — and comes from the WSJ, not exactly known for its own unbiased stance on capitalism.
        seldon 12y ago
        I quoted Wikipedia as it appears you have not read the book: you must of course read all the citations for the paragraph. Had you been interested in actually considering the validity of the sentence I quoted, as opposed to nitpicking, you would have found that the 2nd citation refers you to http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 where you can find a table of contents[0]. Chapter 15 - "A Global Tax on Capital" stands out. Your ad hominem claim is ironic. You posit that it is "unambiguous that the FT editor [holds an agenda]". You further posit that the WSJ is biased. Yet when Piketty "writes a column in the left-wing daily Libération and served as a top economic adviser to the Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal in the 2007 election[1]" you are not convinced that he holds an agenda. Either you too are guilty of ad hominem, "specifically "guilt by association"", or you are logically incoherent, subscribing to double standards. Your political prothezlysing - and downvoting - is not conducive to the discussion. Again, I exhort you to read up on Piketty and reconsider your position. [0]:http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Contents.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Con... [1]:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579575890128783848 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230348030...
        rosser 12y ago
        First of all, I'm not proselytizing. I've never once in this discussion stated, or even alluded to my political opinions, let alone tried to convince anyone else of them. I offered opinions about the politics of the editorial staff of both the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal, neither of which should be terribly controversial, and both of which are utterly orthogonal to my beliefs; and I offered an opinion about whether Piketty wrote his book in service of a pre-existing agenda, as distinct from a belief. That, too, is irrelevant to my politics. Second, my claim of ad hominem isn't "ironic" in light of my other statements. Nowhere did I say the positions of the FT or WSJ editors were wrong; I said they were biased. One can be biased and correct, just as one can be biased and wrong. I don't think it's much of a stretch to posit that the author of your WSJ quote meant it to convey something about how correct Piketty could possibly be, because "socialist". Note, too, that the quote doesn't say Piketty, himself, is a socialist; it just says that he keeps their company (or, more specifically, that they — but mostly, just this one, really, really icky one — keep his): guilt by association. Contrarily, I'm not saying they're wrong because anything; I'm not saying they're wrong at all. I'm saying, "Capitalists don't like something that points out flaws in capitalism. Film at 11." Inferring anything further is projection and fabrication. Sorry, but I'm not your straw man. Finally, if there was any downvoting, it wasn't on my part. You can't downvote direct replies. EDIT: And I have the book already. It's in my queue. I just had to buy another bookshelf, however, so you can probably guess how deep that queue is.
spindritf 12y ago
This is the laziest of criticisms. Don't like someone's argument? Don't even bother reading through, let's check who sponsored the study, or maybe the author is a hypocrite, or at least cheats on his wife, and anyway, it's racist. You could just as easily dismiss Piketty: Oh, he's just some French lefty (cheese eating...), of course he'll conclude that inequality is the problem and we need to tax wealth.
- joe_the_user 12y ago
  If that was the criticism, yes, it would be lazy. But if you listen, there was no "this was poor because it was in ft". It was more like Person1: "that seemed like a poor piece" Person2: "It's not surprising it was poor, ft is often biased" No one claimed that appearing in ft proved anything.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>This is the laziest of criticisms. Don't like someone's argument? Don't even bother reading through, let's check who sponsored the study, or maybe the author is a hypocrite, or at least cheats on his wife, and anyway, it's racist. I read the FT article when it appeared. What seemed remarkable was that, even though it took Piketty years to compile and work with the data, it took the FT editor weeks to come up with a rebuttal [1]. That by itself should tell you something. [1]Unless he read the original French version from last year, but that's doubtful because the book became popular (and therefore dangerous to the upper class) only after being translated to English.
  - spindritf 12y ago
    It tells me nothing. Finding mistakes is always easier than writing the book containing them. And the list of those supposed mistakes is public[1], behind only a registration wall. Piketty either made them, or not. They either substantially change the results, or not. You don't need to make guesses based on timing. Perhaps Chris Giles is motivated by pleasing his "wealthy businessmen" audience. Perhaps he spent sleepless nights pouring over the text to find something, anything. Maybe he even cheats on his wife. But so what? [1] http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/ http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-wi...
Tycho 12y ago
Well, they do have their reputation to protect. If it was just an opinion piece on their blog site, that would be one thing, but the FT, conservative or not, has thrown this onto the front page and is the work of one of their chief editors no less. They have 'skin in the game.'

sd8f9iu 12y ago

I recommend reading what Paul Krugman has to say on the FT piece: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-wrong/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-w...

alexeisadeski3 12y ago
I recommend reading what Tyler Cowen has to say on the FT piece: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/what-do-the-piketty-data-problems-really-mean.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/wha...
SilasX 12y ago
How so? Having read it, can you explain his points and their importance so readers can know it's worth reading further?
- bermanoid 12y ago
  In math, there are many "proofs" that 1 = 2. Going through them and picking them apart is a useful exercise, and can expose misunderstandings and mistakes that are important to be aware of. But at the end of the day, nobody really seriously considers that 1 actually equals 2, it's too at odds with everything else we know. This article is saying that it's possible the FT piece found a valid nitpick, but that the conclusion they're fighting against (rising wealth inequality) is backed up far too strongly by other independent sources for a nitpick to damage it at all.

gammarator 12y ago

The most egregious part to me was the following: "A 2 is added because the number wasn't high enough — it didn't seem to fit what he wanted to show in his charts, so he just added 2 to it. There was quite a lot of this sort of thing in his spreadsheets." The FT author is claiming Piketty knowingly falsified the data here "to fit what he wanted to show." That's a major accusation, and Giles clearly cannot know it is true. The Economist agrees: "But while some of the data and adjustments in the spreadsheets lack adequate documentation, Mr Giles does not have the evidence to justify the implication that figures are drawn "from thin air". Data fabrication is a serious charge to make, and I am surprised Mr Giles would allege it without clearer proof."