4 ms·

> In academic circles, there is ample criticism of that book, so much that it's considered wrong on many points by economists of all political persuasions. No,

> In academic circles, there is ample criticism of that book, so much that it's considered wrong on many points by economists of all political persuasions. No, there isn't. Only Fox News believes that. You clearly haven't read Piketty's book. Among other things, he has excellent data from several countries showing most of all wealth is inherited. Some 70% in France, over 50% in the U.S. That is, in France, for every 100 euros of wealth of any type whatsoever, 70 of those were inherited from one's parents. In the U.S. for every $100 of any sort of wealth whatsoever, over $50 was inherited from one's parents. Most of all wealth is inherited, not worked for. By definition, dynastic wealth shifts around a bit. A billion into this trust (dedicated for grandchildren and great-grandchildren), a billion into that trust dedicated for maintenance of the family's real estate holdings. A given individual may fall in or out of limited rankings such as the Forbes 400. But so what? The 493rd richest person in America is still very very rich, and will remain so until that person decides to distribute their wealth to their heirs (and for that matter, moving out of the top 400 may have been due to providing for the heirs). There are also lots of studies about income mobility. The U.S. has lower income mobility than most nations. In general, if you are born poor, you're quite unlikely to ever reach the top quintile of income. (The top quintile of household income in the U.S. is just over $100K, which I suspect many Silicon Valleyers wouldn't even call "rich".) So one way to write this would be: if you are born poor, you are very unlikely to ever live in a household where there are two earners that each earn a bit over $50K. About 8% of those born poor will ever reach that level of income. http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/ http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

ChrisLomont 12y ago
>No, there isn't. Only Fox News believes that. Here [1] is the first page google returned when I asked for a summary of criticism. Although many would dislike heritage, the critique contains ample references to well respected academics (including some from MIT, Yale, etc.) Here's [2] a widely circulated report on a paper by a MIT grad student showing a significant alternative explanation to Piketty. Here's the actual paper [3]. Here's Krugman [4], pretty much of the same political persuasion as Piketty, summarizing some serious critique and errors in Piketty. Here's [5] other economists claiming Piketty had conclusion altering errors in his data (but if I recall, Piketty later fixed some, but not all, of these errors. The corrections are not in the book as far as I know) Here [6] famous author, economist, and statistician Nassim Taleb proves that Piketty's math is flawed. Here is an easier intro (andother critiques, repeated in the literature) from his notebooks [7, #156 and #158]. I could go on and on, there is ample research going on, but I've amply demonstrated that your claim that it's only Fox News is completely wrong. >The U.S. has lower income mobility than most nations. Only when measured as quintiles, and a lot of that effect is the US has larger dollar value quintiles than most. If a quintile here takes $40K to move across and only $30K in another country, you can have people here with more dollar mobility and less quintile mobility. Please check your source for your claim and see if they measure by quintile or by PPP adjusted dollars. There is a difference. Here [8] is an overview of some issues and references to papers showing how the results change if talking about quintile mobility or dollar mobility. Related, probably the largest study to day on US mobility [9] based on tracking IRS data found that mobility in the US is relatively unchanged for many decades. >In general, if you are born poor, you're quite unlikely to ever reach the top quintile of income. In terms of absolute mobility, 90% of those born into the bottom end up better off than their parents [10, Fig 1]. From the same dataset, the majority born into the bottom quintile do not stay there [Fig 2, 55% leave], and similarly the majority of those born into the top quintile do not stay there [about 55% leave]. So one way to write this would be: if you are born poor or rich, you are most likely to move towards the median. [1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/understanding-thomas-piketty-and-his-critics http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/understandi... [2] http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/nimbysinthetwentyfirstcentury http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-i... [3] http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf [4] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-wrong/?_r=0 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-w... [5] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32YyA0Zcp http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144... [6] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434363 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434363 [7] http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/notebook.htm http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/notebook.htm [8] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/a-guide-to-understanding-international-comparisons-of-economic-mobility http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/a-guide-to-... [9] http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf [10] http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/us-economic-mobility-dream-data/ http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic...
- jellicle 12y ago
  No no, your claim was this: "so much that it's considered wrong on many points by economists of all political persuasions." Good economists expanding on or critiquing small parts of a huge work doesn't represent any sort of repudiation of it; it's the scientific process. And the people paid to object to it (Heritage et al.) will naturally do what they are paid to do; that too represents no sort of repudiation. Krugman on Piketty: "It’s a remarkable claim—and precisely because it’s so remarkable, it needs to be examined carefully and critically. Before I get into that, however, let me say right away that Piketty has written a truly superb book. It’s a work that melds grand historical sweep—when was the last time you heard an economist invoke Jane Austen and Balzac?—with painstaking data analysis. And even though Piketty mocks the economics profession for its “childish passion for mathematics,” underlying his discussion is a tour de force of economic modeling, an approach that integrates the analysis of economic growth with that of the distribution of income and wealth. This is a book that will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics." For someone who hasn't read the book, you sure have a lot to say about it. > the majority of those born into the top quintile do not stay there [about 55% leave]. Another way to write that would be that 45% of those born into the top quintile never have a single year in their adult lives (age 18-110) when they don't have a household income of at least $100K. Not when they're a student in college; not when they're on their deathbed at age 98. That's astonishing. And the other 55%... do have a year, sometime in their adult lives, when they don't have a household income of at least $100K. Does that mean they were suddenly poor? Not hardly.
  - ChrisLomont 12y ago
    So you're done claiming the only counter points are from is Fox News? That was quick. >Good economists expanding on or critiquing small parts of a huge work doesn't represent any sort of repudiation of it. Taleb proving conclusively that Piketty make significant math errors is not a small part. Multiple scholars showing Piketty has data errors, so much that he had to retract some claims, is not a small repudiation. The paper showing that one can reach the same results of Piketty without needing his take on why is pretty significant. There is plenty more, from technical papers dealing with r>g and showing it is absurd, to the pop ones I included above. You want a particularly scathing counter to Piketty? Here [1] is a poll about his r>g claim (central to his work) from likely the most respected forum for polling economists, which includes about 100 top economists from all stripes and all areas. Take a moment to read it, see who is polled (and note they are all over the spectrum). Only one economist strongly agrees with the question, and only 16% agree at all - the other 84% disagree. Read the comments from the economists. Again, you're far from correct. Want a good read? Here [2] is a econ paper from well repsected researchers Acemoglu (MIT) and Robinson (Harvard) from 2014, and here [3] are all papers citing it I could find in case you want to see what critiques exist. Among other flaws in Pikettys claims, they conclusively show that his second fundamental law leads to nonsense, which is contradicted by existing empirical evidence. A quote "In particular, as we noted in the text, Pikettys second fundamental law has untenable implications, particularly in the cases where the growth rate of the economy becomes low (and it is these cases on which Piketty bases his conclusions about the implications of low growth on the capital share of national income)." Of course, you are unaware of all this, and seem to think only Fox would claim there are problems with the work. >For someone who hasn't read the book, you sure have a lot to say about it. For someone that hasn't read any counter to the book, you sure are certain the book is correct. I don't have to read Newton's Principia to know relativity supplants it. I only have to read enough literature to know what is going on in the field. It's ludicrous to claim I need to read the original book in order to benefit from later knowledge or critiques of it. It's nearly equally ludicrous to try to discount solid research by others because I personally did not read the book. Instead of trying ad hominem or implying I am making up this evidence, go read some of it. >Another way to write that would be that 45% of those born into the top quintile never have a single year in their adult lives (age 18-110) when they don't have a household income of at least $100K Care to source that? Not a single year huh? That is certainly not what the paper claims - it only measures two snapshots in time. Did you just make that up, like your other "claims"? Is this your feeling, or can you provide the data like I have that shows you're wrong? I'd like to see your dataset tracking enough people over an entire lifetime to prove that many never leave that bracket. Here's [2] an actual data point towards showing your claim is wrong. It follows a sample of households over the 10 year span 1996-2005, and finds (among other things) that of the bottom quintile of households, the majority moved up over this period, and of the top 1%, the majority dropped out in this period. Fully 40% of those in the top 10% dropped out over this 10 year period, but unfortunately this does not show the quintile for which you claim 45% never see under 100K. And all this is over a 10 year span, not the 92 year span you claim is true. For someone that espouses the scientific process, you certainly ignore what experts write, ignore solid counter evidence, and make up unsupportable (and demonstrably false) claims. Since you seem willing to make up stuff, please provide links to evidence for your future claims. Debunking your claims will be much easier if you're forced to demonstrate your accuracy. [1] http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5v7Rxbk8Z3k3F2t http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re... [2] http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 [3] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&... [4] https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spring-2010/US-Income-Inequality-Its-Not-So-Bad https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spr...

ChrisLomont 12y ago

>No, there isn't. Only Fox News believes that. Here [1] is the first page google returned when I asked for a summary of criticism. Although many would dislike heritage, the critique contains ample references to well respected academics (including some from MIT, Yale, etc.) Here's [2] a widely circulated report on a paper by a MIT grad student showing a significant alternative explanation to Piketty. Here's the actual paper [3]. Here's Krugman [4], pretty much of the same political persuasion as Piketty, summarizing some serious critique and errors in Piketty. Here's [5] other economists claiming Piketty had conclusion altering errors in his data (but if I recall, Piketty later fixed some, but not all, of these errors. The corrections are not in the book as far as I know) Here [6] famous author, economist, and statistician Nassim Taleb proves that Piketty's math is flawed. Here is an easier intro (andother critiques, repeated in the literature) from his notebooks [7, #156 and #158]. I could go on and on, there is ample research going on, but I've amply demonstrated that your claim that it's only Fox News is completely wrong. >The U.S. has lower income mobility than most nations. Only when measured as quintiles, and a lot of that effect is the US has larger dollar value quintiles than most. If a quintile here takes $40K to move across and only $30K in another country, you can have people here with more dollar mobility and less quintile mobility. Please check your source for your claim and see if they measure by quintile or by PPP adjusted dollars. There is a difference. Here [8] is an overview of some issues and references to papers showing how the results change if talking about quintile mobility or dollar mobility. Related, probably the largest study to day on US mobility [9] based on tracking IRS data found that mobility in the US is relatively unchanged for many decades. >In general, if you are born poor, you're quite unlikely to ever reach the top quintile of income. In terms of absolute mobility, 90% of those born into the bottom end up better off than their parents [10, Fig 1]. From the same dataset, the majority born into the bottom quintile do not stay there [Fig 2, 55% leave], and similarly the majority of those born into the top quintile do not stay there [about 55% leave]. So one way to write this would be: if you are born poor or rich, you are most likely to move towards the median. [1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/understanding-thomas-piketty-and-his-critics http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/understandi... [2] http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/nimbysinthetwentyfirstcentury http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-i... [3] http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf [4] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-wrong/?_r=0 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-w... [5] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32YyA0Zcp http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144... [6] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434363 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434363 [7] http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/notebook.htm http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/notebook.htm [8] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/a-guide-to-understanding-international-comparisons-of-economic-mobility http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/a-guide-to-... [9] http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf [10] http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/us-economic-mobility-dream-data/ http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic...

jellicle 12y ago
No no, your claim was this: "so much that it's considered wrong on many points by economists of all political persuasions." Good economists expanding on or critiquing small parts of a huge work doesn't represent any sort of repudiation of it; it's the scientific process. And the people paid to object to it (Heritage et al.) will naturally do what they are paid to do; that too represents no sort of repudiation. Krugman on Piketty: "It’s a remarkable claim—and precisely because it’s so remarkable, it needs to be examined carefully and critically. Before I get into that, however, let me say right away that Piketty has written a truly superb book. It’s a work that melds grand historical sweep—when was the last time you heard an economist invoke Jane Austen and Balzac?—with painstaking data analysis. And even though Piketty mocks the economics profession for its “childish passion for mathematics,” underlying his discussion is a tour de force of economic modeling, an approach that integrates the analysis of economic growth with that of the distribution of income and wealth. This is a book that will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics." For someone who hasn't read the book, you sure have a lot to say about it. > the majority of those born into the top quintile do not stay there [about 55% leave]. Another way to write that would be that 45% of those born into the top quintile never have a single year in their adult lives (age 18-110) when they don't have a household income of at least $100K. Not when they're a student in college; not when they're on their deathbed at age 98. That's astonishing. And the other 55%... do have a year, sometime in their adult lives, when they don't have a household income of at least $100K. Does that mean they were suddenly poor? Not hardly.
- ChrisLomont 12y ago
  So you're done claiming the only counter points are from is Fox News? That was quick. >Good economists expanding on or critiquing small parts of a huge work doesn't represent any sort of repudiation of it. Taleb proving conclusively that Piketty make significant math errors is not a small part. Multiple scholars showing Piketty has data errors, so much that he had to retract some claims, is not a small repudiation. The paper showing that one can reach the same results of Piketty without needing his take on why is pretty significant. There is plenty more, from technical papers dealing with r>g and showing it is absurd, to the pop ones I included above. You want a particularly scathing counter to Piketty? Here [1] is a poll about his r>g claim (central to his work) from likely the most respected forum for polling economists, which includes about 100 top economists from all stripes and all areas. Take a moment to read it, see who is polled (and note they are all over the spectrum). Only one economist strongly agrees with the question, and only 16% agree at all - the other 84% disagree. Read the comments from the economists. Again, you're far from correct. Want a good read? Here [2] is a econ paper from well repsected researchers Acemoglu (MIT) and Robinson (Harvard) from 2014, and here [3] are all papers citing it I could find in case you want to see what critiques exist. Among other flaws in Pikettys claims, they conclusively show that his second fundamental law leads to nonsense, which is contradicted by existing empirical evidence. A quote "In particular, as we noted in the text, Pikettys second fundamental law has untenable implications, particularly in the cases where the growth rate of the economy becomes low (and it is these cases on which Piketty bases his conclusions about the implications of low growth on the capital share of national income)." Of course, you are unaware of all this, and seem to think only Fox would claim there are problems with the work. >For someone who hasn't read the book, you sure have a lot to say about it. For someone that hasn't read any counter to the book, you sure are certain the book is correct. I don't have to read Newton's Principia to know relativity supplants it. I only have to read enough literature to know what is going on in the field. It's ludicrous to claim I need to read the original book in order to benefit from later knowledge or critiques of it. It's nearly equally ludicrous to try to discount solid research by others because I personally did not read the book. Instead of trying ad hominem or implying I am making up this evidence, go read some of it. >Another way to write that would be that 45% of those born into the top quintile never have a single year in their adult lives (age 18-110) when they don't have a household income of at least $100K Care to source that? Not a single year huh? That is certainly not what the paper claims - it only measures two snapshots in time. Did you just make that up, like your other "claims"? Is this your feeling, or can you provide the data like I have that shows you're wrong? I'd like to see your dataset tracking enough people over an entire lifetime to prove that many never leave that bracket. Here's [2] an actual data point towards showing your claim is wrong. It follows a sample of households over the 10 year span 1996-2005, and finds (among other things) that of the bottom quintile of households, the majority moved up over this period, and of the top 1%, the majority dropped out in this period. Fully 40% of those in the top 10% dropped out over this 10 year period, but unfortunately this does not show the quintile for which you claim 45% never see under 100K. And all this is over a 10 year span, not the 92 year span you claim is true. For someone that espouses the scientific process, you certainly ignore what experts write, ignore solid counter evidence, and make up unsupportable (and demonstrably false) claims. Since you seem willing to make up stuff, please provide links to evidence for your future claims. Debunking your claims will be much easier if you're forced to demonstrate your accuracy. [1] http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5v7Rxbk8Z3k3F2t http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re... [2] http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 [3] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&... [4] https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spring-2010/US-Income-Inequality-Its-Not-So-Bad https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spr...