I have been reading "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" and it is a really good book. Most here are familiar with the book and its thesis that capitalism has a tendency to exacerbate inequality. It's a feature, not a bug.
Of course, using data to show that the lies used to impovrish so many are just that -- lies -- creates a need for a response. Those who have made so much by screwing so many need to put the clothes back on the emperor, or at least make you think he is wearing clothes when your own eyes (and life) tells you the truth.
So some columnist with the Financial Times purported to show errors in Piketty's data, and then leapt from this to proclaim that inequality was not increasing. Don't believe your wallet. No, you're supposed to believe him. Nothing here, move on, don't read that book.
A lot of this is just an opiate for the 1% of the 1% -- they need their rationalizations for inequality and the Financial Times is responding to that demand.
Piketty has responded back.
Six days after The Financial Times launched an attack on the data behind Thomas Piketty’s much-debated tome on inequality, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” Mr. Piketty has offered his first detailed response to the newspaper’s criticism.
The short version: He doesn’t give an inch.
snip
Mr. Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics, wrote that his data were correct, and his conclusions stood: Wealth inequality in Europe and the United States was high in the years before World War I, fell for much of the 20th century, and has been rising sharply again in the past three decades.
He argued that many of the things that The Financial Times identified as sloppy or arbitrary were in fact considered choices, which he explained in footnotes. Reasonable people might disagree with some of his choices of how to handle the data, he says. But even where there’s room for debate, any reasonable changes to his methodology would be small and not alter the broad conclusions, he suggested.
NY Times: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data
Here is a link to the complete response by Professor Piketty:
Technical appendix of the book « Capital in the twenty-first century» Appendix to chapter 10. Inequality of Capital Ownership Addendum: Response to FT
I welcome all criticisms and I am very happy that this book contributes to stimulate a global debate about these important issues. My problem with the FT criticisms is twofold. First, I did not find the FT criticism particularly constructive. The FT suggests that I made mistakes and errors in my computations, which is simply wrong, as I show below. The corrections proposed by the FT to my series (and with which I disagree) are for the most part relatively minor, and do not affect the long run evolutions and my overall analysis, contrarily to what the FT suggests.
Next, the FT corrections that are somewhat more important are based upon methodological choices that are quite debatable (to say the least). In particular, the FT simply chooses to ignore the Saez-Zucman 2014 study, which indicates a higher rise in top wealth shares in the United States during recent decades than what I report in my book (if anything, my book underestimates the rise in wealth inequality). Regarding Britain, the FT seems to put a lot of trust in self-reported wealth survey data that notoriously underestimates wealth inequality.
I will start by giving an overview of the series on wealth inequality that I present in
chapter 10 of my book. I will then respond to the specific points raised by the FT.
Technical appendix of the book « Capital in the twenty-first century» Appendix to chapter 10. Inequality of Capital Ownership Addendum: Response to FT
Please go to Professor Piketty's website to review the point-by-point refutation.
Technical appendix of the book « Capital in the twenty-first century» Appendix to chapter 10. Inequality of Capital Ownership Addendum: Response to FT
I won't hold my breath waiting for a retraction by the Financial Times. Their readership requires a fairy tale of how great they are to screw everyone else, what a favor they are doing for us all, and the FT will continue to deliver.