3 ms·
On Scott Winship, see one of my top level comments (I made two top level comments as I only started investigating this after I posted once). Whatever was print
by QuantumChaos 12y ago
On Scott Winship, see one of my top level comments (I made two top level comments as I only started investigating this after I posted once). Whatever was printed in the article, he has said on Twitter that he does doubt Piketty's conclusions, and also that the FT allegations are significant.
- mpweiher 12y ago"...and also that the FT allegations are significant" (my emphasis). Original Tweet: "3/But UK--&, I now believe, US--methods need to be explained by #Piketty, else looks pretty bad. Just not CONSEQUENTIAL 4 overall thesis" (again, my emphasis) https://twitter.com/swinshi/status/470880036233699328 https://twitter.com/swinshi/status/470880036233699328 "are significant" vs "not CONSEQUENTIAL" seem like exact opposites to me. EDIT: missing parenthesis
- QuantumChaos 12y agoyou are misreading the context. According to Winship, Piketty's results are wrong/irrelevant for other, independent reasons. But not everyone shares this view, so Winship is clarifying that, for people who were initially convinced by Piketty's analysis, the FT criticism is important. But it is not important for Winship because even without the FT criticism, he has independent reasons to discounting Piketty's analysis.