>>[...]and therefore dangerous to the upper class This does not lend credibility to whatever argument it is that you are trying to make. >>I read the FT artic

>>[...]and therefore dangerous to the upper class This does not lend credibility to whatever argument it is that you are trying to make. >>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. This is an absurd and daft point. It is obvious that the process of compiling data and producing a book presents a more time-consuming task than working with the same data, already compiled, in order to complete not a book, but a newspaper article. As a corollary to your statement it is further worth noting that The Economist also bring up scholarly defense of Piketty's data: "Scott Winship, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute who disputes Mr Piketty's overarching narrative about inequality wrote on Twitter last night: I’ve spent time with Piketty U.S. wealth ineq[uality] spreadsheet and LOTS of time with his income data. He's not up to funny business." As made apparent, your passive-aggressive political proselytizing does not offer a constructive contribution to this submission. Please understand this.