News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017).

Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by mordymoop on Sunday March 31, 2019 @11:17AM (#19536001)
Are we still talking about this? Within months of the book’s release, readers had found many examples where his data selections had been incomplete. To the extent that the main points were invalidated or made far less convincing. When you include the full data in his analysis, the main conclusions are drawn into question. There are many very thorough blog posts by economists you can easily Google.

It’d be like if Origin of Species came out, but evolution was actually wrong, and Darwin had only seemed right at first because he left out the species that didn’t fit his model.

I don’t think Piketty did this on purpose, by the way. He just didn’t push hard enough on the data that he didn’t want to find fault with.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by m0llusk on Sunday March 31, 2019 @03:12PM (#19537623)
This is not accurate. Piketty has continued to refine the data and add more as it comes available. The main point was that capital flows are interesting and that is beyond contest at this point. The book Capital has some tentative analysis at the end but doesn't make any strong conclusions and avoids taking the focus away from measuring flows of capital.

Because it is possible to use this data about capital to come to conclusions that are politically unpopular among some subgroups people have piled on this false critical narrative emphasizing supposed errors and gaps in the data and keeping the focus on some brief remarks at the end of a very large work that has a range of applications.

I don't think critics of Piketty did this on purpose. They just pushed unreasonably hard on the data they wanted to find fault with.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by KirinDave on Sunday March 31, 2019 @11:20AM (#19536020)
This would be an excellent time to cite sources.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by tptacek on Sunday March 31, 2019 @11:40AM (#19536124)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-histo...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by nextstep on Sunday March 31, 2019 @11:46AM (#19536160)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/30/piket...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by wycy on Sunday March 31, 2019 @11:27AM (#19536060)
Do you know of a reputable source debunking Capital that makes good arguments?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by wavefunction on Sunday March 31, 2019 @11:26AM (#19536051)
I am always interested to read contrasting arguments and weigh a subject's merits based on those arguments so I'd love to see those critiques.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017) by mcguire on Sunday March 31, 2019 @11:37AM (#19536112)
Most of the economics community's criticisms were apparently mentioned in the article. I'll bet the actual reference is to the Financial Times' contested coverage mentioned on the wiki': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...
[ Parent | on HN ]