4 ms·

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.

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.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Those papers are more of the same - no theory is clearly stated, just a few accounting identities that describe wealth/income ratios. As for the blog post, I could be wrong. Does Piketty not claim that r > g is the cause of inequality? If so, why does Piketty have a subsection called "The Fundamental Force for Divergence: r > g" in his book? In any case, confusion like this is why it's so important to clearly write down your main theory at the very beginning. If Piketty did this, you could simply point at a set of equations and show how my counterexamples don't disprove them. I don't know why you are getting hostile or accusing me of being "rabid". Kind of goes against the spirit of careful intellectual discussion. Makes me think you have an emotional attachment to Piketty being right.
- mercer 12y ago
  > I don't know why you are getting hostile or accusing me of being "rabid". Kind of goes against the spirit of careful intellectual discussion. Initially, I felt similarly about the general 'tone' of your statements. Then I browsed through your comment history. Here are the most 'rabid' statements I could find (emphasis mine): > What's the specific error I made beyond doubting the Great Piketty? > I imagine Piketty would consider that a problem if he knew India existed. followed, to be fair, by pointing out at least twice: > It's an attempt at poetic exaggeration To my surprise, you've been acting more in 'the spirit of careful intellectual discussion' than I initially thought, and I suspect it was the surrounding comments that agreed with yours that 'polluted' my view (as well as a slight personal bias that I have). Perhaps it's good to completely avoid poetic exaggeration, or to maybe consider the context of you comments and adjust to make your comments a bit more palatable to the many who strongly disagree. Or perhaps you're doing fine as it is, and your 'karma' attests to that. Either way, I figured I'd post my observations for those who might similarly, and I believe erroneously, feel that you are being 'rabid'. I'd also like to thank you for your informative comments. I'm following all discussions on Pikkety with great interest, and I'm trying to stay aware of my bias of wanting his results to be correct. (and my apologies for not contributing something more substantial at this point in time)
- foobarqux 12y ago
  It is pretty brazen to say no theory exists when you were directed not only to the paper but the section where that theory is described. Since you can't be bothered to read it, section 5 of Piketty's HID paper describes his model of long-run wealth distribution, assuming a Cobb-Douglas utility function and random multiplicative shocks to an individual's savings rate, as a Pareto distribution where the tail concentration is a function of r-g. I am spoon feeding you at this point and I won't do it anymore.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Actually you are right - I missed it the first time. My mistake. Based on a quick skim, it looks like Piketty is assuming far more than r > g (which is of course necessary), but there does appear to be some sort of distributional theory. Based on a first skim (I'll take a more detailed look later), inequality appears to be a function of (r - g). I.e., r > g does not imply increasing inequality, the magnitude of the inequality merely determines the level of inequality. Seems to disagree a bit with the newspaper summary of Piketty, but I'll have to read more carefully to be sure.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Those papers are more of the same - no theory is clearly stated, just a few accounting identities that describe wealth/income ratios. As for the blog post, I could be wrong. Does Piketty not claim that r > g is the cause of inequality? If so, why does Piketty have a subsection called "The Fundamental Force for Divergence: r > g" in his book? In any case, confusion like this is why it's so important to clearly write down your main theory at the very beginning. If Piketty did this, you could simply point at a set of equations and show how my counterexamples don't disprove them. I don't know why you are getting hostile or accusing me of being "rabid". Kind of goes against the spirit of careful intellectual discussion. Makes me think you have an emotional attachment to Piketty being right.

mercer 12y ago
> I don't know why you are getting hostile or accusing me of being "rabid". Kind of goes against the spirit of careful intellectual discussion. Initially, I felt similarly about the general 'tone' of your statements. Then I browsed through your comment history. Here are the most 'rabid' statements I could find (emphasis mine): > What's the specific error I made beyond doubting the Great Piketty? > I imagine Piketty would consider that a problem if he knew India existed. followed, to be fair, by pointing out at least twice: > It's an attempt at poetic exaggeration To my surprise, you've been acting more in 'the spirit of careful intellectual discussion' than I initially thought, and I suspect it was the surrounding comments that agreed with yours that 'polluted' my view (as well as a slight personal bias that I have). Perhaps it's good to completely avoid poetic exaggeration, or to maybe consider the context of you comments and adjust to make your comments a bit more palatable to the many who strongly disagree. Or perhaps you're doing fine as it is, and your 'karma' attests to that. Either way, I figured I'd post my observations for those who might similarly, and I believe erroneously, feel that you are being 'rabid'. I'd also like to thank you for your informative comments. I'm following all discussions on Pikkety with great interest, and I'm trying to stay aware of my bias of wanting his results to be correct. (and my apologies for not contributing something more substantial at this point in time)
foobarqux 12y ago
It is pretty brazen to say no theory exists when you were directed not only to the paper but the section where that theory is described. Since you can't be bothered to read it, section 5 of Piketty's HID paper describes his model of long-run wealth distribution, assuming a Cobb-Douglas utility function and random multiplicative shocks to an individual's savings rate, as a Pareto distribution where the tail concentration is a function of r-g. I am spoon feeding you at this point and I won't do it anymore.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Actually you are right - I missed it the first time. My mistake. Based on a quick skim, it looks like Piketty is assuming far more than r > g (which is of course necessary), but there does appear to be some sort of distributional theory. Based on a first skim (I'll take a more detailed look later), inequality appears to be a function of (r - g). I.e., r > g does not imply increasing inequality, the magnitude of the inequality merely determines the level of inequality. Seems to disagree a bit with the newspaper summary of Piketty, but I'll have to read more carefully to be sure.