Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
Upside of Inequality Unintended Consequences Oxford
BUY THE BOOKS
  • Macro Roundup
  • Highlights
  • Blog
  • OpEds
  • Reviews
  • About
    • About the Author
    • About the Books
    • Read Excerpts
    • Read the Reviews
    • Debates
    • Media and TV
  • Topics
    • All Media Appearances
    • Productivity
    • Monetary Policy
    • Banking
    • Politics
    • Upside endnotes
    • Stuff Ed’s Assistant Thought He Might Like
  • Contact
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • youtube
  • linkedin
  • Advanced SearchChoose Categories To Search Within
    • Close Advanced Search

Advanced Search

Financial Times raises concerns about integrity of Piketty’s data but effects likely inconsequential

Wealth Inequality in US 1810 to 2010_790x561

First, liberal economists damned Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, with a stream of faint praise by applauding the quality of Piketty’s data while admitting to concerns about the quality of his economic logic. Then, Larry Summers took Piketty’s logic to the woodshed. Marty Feldstein followed by denouncing Piketty’s interpretation of the U.S. data.

Meanwhile, Bonnet et al found that Piketty’s findings were entirely attributable to real estate, which does not substitute for labor. Now, Chris Giles, Economics Editor of the Financial Times, raises concerns about the integrity of Piketty’s data. Giles’ adjustments, however, appear inconsequential. The Manhattan Institute’s Scott Winship stated his conclusion in an amusing way: “Only a couple of issues Giles highlighted … appear to matter, but in the worst case for Piketty, they would make the originally unimpressive trends look less ambiguously benign.”

It would be unfortunate if Piketty is declared the winner of this debate and it enhances his credibility. Even liberal economists including Summers (“[Piketty] misreads the literature”), Krugman (“an intellectual sleight of hand”), DeLong (“Piketty has no theory”), and Solow (“you eat your wage, not your share of national income”) have all taken steps to distance themselves from his theories. And, Bonnet et al (“any conclusion in terms of inequalities is hard to infer”) and Feldstein (“His thesis rests on … a flawed interpretation of U.S. income tax data”) have critisized his interpretation of the data directly. As long as the debate is over data—Piketty’s strength—and not the weakness of his theories, Piketty avoids his real problem.

I elaborate on the problems with Piketty’s theories on Bloomberg TV’s In the Loop with Betty Lui.

Wealth Inequality in Europe 1810 to 2010_1000x733

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

© Copyright 2023 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved

 

Loading Comments...