4 ms·

The FT is pretty open in it's questioning of the data - http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/ http://blogs

The FT is pretty open in it's questioning of the data - 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... Rather than accuse them of dishonesty surely all Piketty has to do is explain where their analysis is wrong?

vanderZwan 12y ago
He and others (including critics of his work) have, as far as I can tell? > While the available data was "imperfect", it did not undermine his central argument about widening inequality, he said. "Where the Financial Times is being dishonest is to suggest that this changes things in the conclusions I make, when in fact it changes nothing. More recent studies only support my conclusions, by using different sources." > Scott Winship, an economist at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and notable critic of Piketty's analysis, said the FT's allegations weren't "significant for the fundamental question of whether Piketty's thesis is right or not". In an email to Bloomberg news agency, he wrote: "It's hard to think Piketty did something unethical when he put it up there for people like me to delve into his figures and find something that looks sketchy … Piketty has been as good or better than anyone at both making all his data available and documenting what he does generally."
- QuantumChaos 12y ago
  The first quote is exactly the kind of vagueness that could be avoided by specifically addressing what the FT said, which other studies support his conclusions, etc. The second quote is similarly vague, and the part on ethics is irrelevant.
  - vanderZwan 12y ago
    Could you clarify what you mean with "specifically addressing"?
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    He did cite the study (Saez/Zucman). The article probably omitted the specific reference.

4 ms·

The FT is pretty open in it's questioning of the data - http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/ http://blogs

by youngtaff 12y ago

vanderZwan 12y ago
He and others (including critics of his work) have, as far as I can tell? > While the available data was "imperfect", it did not undermine his central argument about widening inequality, he said. "Where the Financial Times is being dishonest is to suggest that this changes things in the conclusions I make, when in fact it changes nothing. More recent studies only support my conclusions, by using different sources." > Scott Winship, an economist at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and notable critic of Piketty's analysis, said the FT's allegations weren't "significant for the fundamental question of whether Piketty's thesis is right or not". In an email to Bloomberg news agency, he wrote: "It's hard to think Piketty did something unethical when he put it up there for people like me to delve into his figures and find something that looks sketchy … Piketty has been as good or better than anyone at both making all his data available and documenting what he does generally."
- QuantumChaos 12y ago
  The first quote is exactly the kind of vagueness that could be avoided by specifically addressing what the FT said, which other studies support his conclusions, etc. The second quote is similarly vague, and the part on ethics is irrelevant.
  - vanderZwan 12y ago
    Could you clarify what you mean with "specifically addressing"?
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    He did cite the study (Saez/Zucman). The article probably omitted the specific reference.