‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
1–10 of 90 posts
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#2Umm, send this to peer review. Here's the link to Góes actual paper(http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf) published as an IMF working report which doesn't even have the backing of the IMF/managers/etc. I doubt it'd get published if reviewed. Really, out of the centuries of data they could have pulled in, they chose to use 1980 through 2012? Return on the capital is not ~1%....flawed assumptions, flawed model IMHO. Amazing that WSJ parades it as if it were peer reviewed fact. Then again, I'm not an expert. I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies.
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#3Umm, send this to peer review. Here's the link to Góes actual paper( http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf ) published as an IMF working report which doesn't even have the backing of the IMF/managers/etc. I doubt it'd get published if reviewed. Really, out of the centuries of data they could have pulled in, they chose to use 1980 through 2012? Return on the capital is not ~1%....flawed assumptions,…
> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies.
No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#4Umm, send this to peer review. Here's the link to Góes actual paper( http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf ) published as an IMF working report which doesn't even have the backing of the IMF/managers/etc. I doubt it'd get published if reviewed. Really, out of the centuries of data they could have pulled in, they chose to use 1980 through 2012? Return on the capital is not ~1%....flawed assumptions,…
> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies. No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#5Umm, send this to peer review. Here's the link to Góes actual paper( http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf ) published as an IMF working report which doesn't even have the backing of the IMF/managers/etc. I doubt it'd get published if reviewed. Really, out of the centuries of data they could have pulled in, they chose to use 1980 through 2012? Return on the capital is not ~1%....flawed assumptions,…
The WSJ didn't present the paper as peer-reviewed fact. It's also not like Piketty's book was peer-reviewed either...
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#6Ah, economics. "There is little more than some apparent correlations the reader can eyeball in charts" - so, how does this compare to the actual standards of testing of competing theories in economy?
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#7Umm, send this to peer review. Here's the link to Góes actual paper( http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf ) published as an IMF working report which doesn't even have the backing of the IMF/managers/etc. I doubt it'd get published if reviewed. Really, out of the centuries of data they could have pulled in, they chose to use 1980 through 2012? Return on the capital is not ~1%....flawed assumptions,…
> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies. No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.
And scientific content in most economists is zero.
It's 80% ideology + 20% math used to prove their point based on ideological assumptions.
Which is also why economics and economists managed to ever make 0 predictions for anything more complicated than the most basic of models, and have failed time and again to predict real world outcomes.
And then they get in bed with power, as advisors, ministers, etc -- talk about the worse case of "conflict of interest" compared to any other scientific field.
Well, maybe except doctors in the 70s working for the tobacco industry.
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#8I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course, there is still work to be done).
Incidentally, I think even though (as Piketty claims) inequality may be increasing, the average person (certainly in developed nations, but also in developing ones) has also been unimaginably enriched over the past 200 years. By any ethically relevant standard (access to food, shelter, heating, technology, entertainment), we live unbelievably fortunate lives. This when our ancestors a mere 3-4 generations ago were unspeakably poor.
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#9Umm, send this to peer review. Here's the link to Góes actual paper( http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf ) published as an IMF working report which doesn't even have the backing of the IMF/managers/etc. I doubt it'd get published if reviewed. Really, out of the centuries of data they could have pulled in, they chose to use 1980 through 2012? Return on the capital is not ~1%....flawed assumptions,…
> I only did mathematical modeling for HPC systems, not economies. No worries. Economics content in Piketty's arguments is zero.
For those who reads french language -- Piketty sometimes publishes articles in Le Monde. I would be really curious to know what people here think about these publications. I am not entirely sure how to interpret them.
Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory
#10I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…
What people seem to care about is not net improvement, but relative improvement. It really comes down to if you feel like things aren't better because you are comparing them to other people. It's not right or wrong, it's just an impossibly moving target.