4 ms·

What is Piketty's theoretical weakness?

praxeologist 12y ago
See this article, especially toward the end on his understanding of capital: https://mises.org/daily/6736/Thomas-Piketty-on-Inequality-and-Capital https://mises.org/daily/6736/Thomas-Piketty-on-Inequality-an...
- foobarqux 12y ago
  The main criticism there is that the concept of return on capital is meaningless. I think that is fringe view and I don't find it compelling.
  - praxeologist 12y ago
    >I think that is fringe view and I don't find it compelling. That's a vacuous non-argument and appeal to popular opinion. Not compelling as well.
    - foobarqux 12y ago
      Many complex systems, hard to describe on a micro level, have straightforward macro statistics. I think return on capital can be described but such statistics even if individual investments are highly variable. Capturing the return is achieved by having a highly diversified portfolio.
yummyfajitas 12y ago
His lack of a clearly stated theory. Ask yourself this question: in a few equations, what is his fundamental claim? What specific data (irrespective of technical details about collecting it) would prove or disprove his theory? The closest he comes to having a clearly stated theory is that "r > g => growth of inequality". That specific claim is completely wrong. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequality.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequalit...
- foobarqux 12y ago
  He has a clearly stated theory which can be judged independently of his empirical measurements and is not on its face "completely wrong". I can't understand how you have spent so much time virulently criticizing Piketty and so little time doing even the most basic research of his work, going so far as to ignore material that nullifies your (imagined) criticism and which has been explicitly pointed out to you. Had you simply spent five minutes reading documents that were helpfully found for you then you would know exactly what is his model. Didn't the fact that you thought you could refute an recognized expert in the field's work in a few minutes with the most basic criticism give you pause?
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    I read his book. He talks about Balzac and Jane Austen a lot and devotes a small amount of time handwaving about the micro-scale of inequality. No equations (beyond a few accounting identities), representative agents, or anything else you'd expect to see. Of course, if you want to include a link to someplace where it was "explicitly pointed out"...I'm not holding my breath. And since you seem to disagree with the claims I made in my blog post, what claim do you disagree with? What's the specific error I made beyond doubting the Great Piketty?
    - foobarqux 12y ago
      Here is where (a PhD economist) "explicitly pointed out" references to you after you derisively made the exact same demand you do now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7658808#up_7661247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7658808#up_7661247 Section 5 of HID especially. As that economist said models and equations are not included in the book presumably because it would make it inaccessible to many people. On the other hand I don't know how someone so interested in those aspects not only spent essentially no effort in finding them but ignored references they themselves requested and were provided with. As for the blog post what I disagree with is that it represents Piketty's claim, whether that claim is true or not. It doesn't. Your tirade against Piketty is completely unfounded, bizarrely rabid and seemingly prejudiced.

See this article, especially toward the end on his understanding of capital: https://mises.org/daily/6736/Thomas-Piketty-on-Inequality-and-Capital https://mises.org/daily/6736/Thomas-Piketty-on-Inequality-an...

foobarqux 12y ago
The main criticism there is that the concept of return on capital is meaningless. I think that is fringe view and I don't find it compelling.
- praxeologist 12y ago
  >I think that is fringe view and I don't find it compelling. That's a vacuous non-argument and appeal to popular opinion. Not compelling as well.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    Many complex systems, hard to describe on a micro level, have straightforward macro statistics. I think return on capital can be described but such statistics even if individual investments are highly variable. Capturing the return is achieved by having a highly diversified portfolio.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

His lack of a clearly stated theory. Ask yourself this question: in a few equations, what is his fundamental claim? What specific data (irrespective of technical details about collecting it) would prove or disprove his theory? The closest he comes to having a clearly stated theory is that "r > g => growth of inequality". That specific claim is completely wrong. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequality.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/piketty_and_inequalit...

foobarqux 12y ago
He has a clearly stated theory which can be judged independently of his empirical measurements and is not on its face "completely wrong". I can't understand how you have spent so much time virulently criticizing Piketty and so little time doing even the most basic research of his work, going so far as to ignore material that nullifies your (imagined) criticism and which has been explicitly pointed out to you. Had you simply spent five minutes reading documents that were helpfully found for you then you would know exactly what is his model. Didn't the fact that you thought you could refute an recognized expert in the field's work in a few minutes with the most basic criticism give you pause?
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  I read his book. He talks about Balzac and Jane Austen a lot and devotes a small amount of time handwaving about the micro-scale of inequality. No equations (beyond a few accounting identities), representative agents, or anything else you'd expect to see. Of course, if you want to include a link to someplace where it was "explicitly pointed out"...I'm not holding my breath. And since you seem to disagree with the claims I made in my blog post, what claim do you disagree with? What's the specific error I made beyond doubting the Great Piketty?
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    Here is where (a PhD economist) "explicitly pointed out" references to you after you derisively made the exact same demand you do now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7658808#up_7661247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7658808#up_7661247 Section 5 of HID especially. As that economist said models and equations are not included in the book presumably because it would make it inaccessible to many people. On the other hand I don't know how someone so interested in those aspects not only spent essentially no effort in finding them but ignored references they themselves requested and were provided with. As for the blog post what I disagree with is that it represents Piketty's claim, whether that claim is true or not. It doesn't. Your tirade against Piketty is completely unfounded, bizarrely rabid and seemingly prejudiced.