Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "Facts Are Stubborn Things . . . As Thomas Piketty Is Beginning to Find Out" 19

Journal by smittyoneeach
Emphasis original:

The charges are devastating, and there is plenty to back them up. And again, let's be abundantly clear: The Financial Times is accusing Thomas Piketty of dishonesty, of making up his arguments, of actively trying to mislead readers and actively trying to mischaracterize inequality trends. This mischaracterization leads to policy prescriptions on Piketty's part that are both entirely unrealistic in their design and implementation, and, more importantly, are wholly unsupported by the actual data on inequality . The main thrust of Thomas Piketty's book is entirely undermined, and his arguments and conclusions are annihilated. It is hard to imagine a more comprehensive refutation.
. . .
The second thing we ought to note is that neither Giles, nor Giugliano, nor the Financial Times would have discovered that Piketty's books is fundamentally flawed if they listened to Paul Krugman, who famously said on his blog that "if you think you've found an obvious hole, empirical or logical, in Piketty, you're very probably wrong. He's done his homework!" Yes, that was a real statement by Paul Krugman, and yes, it ought to haunt him for the rest of his lifeâ"and beyond. We now know that it is more accurate to say that Piketty fudged his homework. I doubt that Krugman knew that Piketty's conclusions were pretty much made up out of thin air-if he did, there is truly something rotten in the state of economics-but the point is that Krugman tried his damnedest to ensure that no one would take a critical eye to Piketty's data and conclusions.

And this is the same parade of no-talent rodeo clowns that embrace anthropogenic global warming (or whatever the term of the week is), abortion, ObamaCare, and pretty much every other intellectual cock-up going today. May God require of these idiots their idiocy.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Facts Are Stubborn Things . . . As Thomas Piketty Is Beginning to Find Out" More

"Facts Are Stubborn Things . . . As Thomas Piketty Is Beginning to Find Out"

Comments Filter:
  • ...any of that meant anything to anyone who liked the conclusions of the book.

    • Exactly. The "fake but accurate" side will just give a big shrug and say so what. Wealth inequality exists, even if a given report about it is bogus. And they believe wealth inequality is problem, so like Al Gore's film, if it raises awareness, it still has tremendous value.

      That's why Paul Krugman and others want everyone to look at it uncritically. Because the point is not in the details, but the advocacy.

  • Amazing that this book only came out in 2014. The first lady and her media supporters have been using this income inequality argument for her food desert boondoggle for several years already. In Nashville, they are calling it "food apartheid." Essentially, if there is not a proper grocery store within .5 miles of a poor person, you got yourself a food desert and they are "spreading" to the suburbs. The wealthy neighborhoods, no matter what their distance from a grocer, are not labeled food deserts becau

  • I am a Chinese from China

    We Chinese who survived the People's Commune and the Cultural Revolution can tell you that the idea of a "Total Wealth Equality" among all people is but a big BULLSHIT

    Even inside the People's Commune where supposedly every single person get to share every single thing equally, INEQUALITY STILL EXISTED

    Those who belong to the Communist Party would get more than those who weren't

    Those who had connections (in Mandarin, it's called Guan Xi ) to someone in the top echelon got to enjoy mu

  • Your conclusion that people who believe in the existence of wealth inequality would for some reason support the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is utter bullshit. That bill was - as you yourself demonstrated - spoon fed to congress by way of the Heritage Foundation. There is nothing liberal or progressive about it; it is a giant handout to the industry that has the most power in Washington DC today (at least in terms of the number of senators and representatives who they own outright).

    Do

    • Your conclusion that people who believe in the existence of wealth inequality

      What's to 'believe', in any religious sense? That there is a distribution amongst incomes is, I should think, about as controversial as the sunrise. I'm as confident that a distribution of incomes exists as I am that the climate is not constant, and that you were you at the point your information was 100% present, i.e., conception. These are matters of simple, common sense.

      would for some reason support the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is utter bullshit.

      I mean, I agree that Krugman's output is largely scatalogical; is that your point?

      That bill was - as you yourself demonstrated - spoon fed to congress by way of the Heritage Foundation.

      And speaking of scatalogical cling-ons, you continue t

      • Congratulations. By length alone, that comment gave the best illusion of thought of nearly any that you have written in reply to a comment of mine in weeks (if not longer). You almost even managed to avoid reaching for standard conservative boogeymen in place of actual arguments.

        Going on...

        Your conclusion that people who believe in the existence of wealth inequality

        What's to 'believe', in any religious sense? That there is a distribution amongst incomes is, I should think, about as controversial as the sunrise. I'm as confident that a distribution of incomes exists

        If that is the case, then you cannot argue that Piketty's argument is complete bullshit, you can only argue that the magnitude he suggests is wrong. Your current text and tense suggest that you are trying to complet

        • Look, the PPACA is a wrecking ball, intended to clear the decks in preparation for Single Payer. Has there ever been any other goal for our Progressive wünderkinder?
          • Once again, you ignored pretty well everything I said, and then responded with one of your conspiracy theories. You forgot, however, to tell us how this also prepares for a reptoid NWO.

            Any realistic person realizes that HIIBA 2010 guarantees that in the absence of the actual breakup of our republic we won't see a single payer system for at least another 20 years (and for that matter if the country broke up into 2 or more new countries then HIIBA 2010 is irrelevant and single payer would have no bearing

            • You forgot, however, to tell us how this also prepares for a reptoid NWO.

              After decades of training people to look to the government for handouts, we're supposed to beg for relief from all this madness. I think we're supposed to vote in Her Majesty to tidy everything with Single Payer starting in 2016. Or was there some other plan?

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close