Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#11

Post by hsksn78728 »

adwhit wrote: post #4
conistonwater wrote: post #2

Response in full (pdf): http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Tec...

Quoting from the response: a 44% wealth share for the top 10% (and a 12.5% wealth share for the top 1%, according to the FT) would mean that Britain is currently one the most egalitarian countries in history in terms of wealth distribution; in particular this would mean that Britain is a lot more equal that Sweden, and in fact a lot more equal than what Sweden as ever been (including in the 1980s). This does not look…

Is this a joke? The UK's own Office for National Statistics derived that 44% figure, not the FT.

Shame on you.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#12

Post by epistasis »

hsksn78728 wrote: post #9
Malarkey73 wrote: post #5

The FT is actually a pretty balanced high quality paper - but their alternative analysis of the Piketty data is shoddy. I can't imagine any good comeback from them to Pikettys comeback.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that FT's data is shoddy since you made that claim. What specifically are you referring to and what sources are you citing?

For example, from the fine article:

>He says the newspaper’s analysis rests on apples-to-oranges comparisons of past data from tax returns mixed with current data from surveys, which makes the conclusions they reach deeply flawed, and contrary to what a wide range of other studies have found.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#13

Post by ThomPete »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #3

In this age of metrics everywhere, evidence-based everything, big data... I think what this story actually is, is a reminder that just because something is based on quantitative data, that doesn't make it 'objective' or automatically 'truth'. Quantitative analysis rests on so many choices, as to how to measure, what measurements to use, what statistical formula to use, how to interpret what they say. Each of those ch…

I like to say that usefulness trumps truth.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#14

Post by gress »

hsksn78728 wrote: post #9
Malarkey73 wrote: post #5

The FT is actually a pretty balanced high quality paper - but their alternative analysis of the Piketty data is shoddy. I can't imagine any good comeback from them to Pikettys comeback.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that FT's data is shoddy since you made that claim. What specifically are you referring to and what sources are you citing?

You didn't read the article.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#15

Post by 001sky »

Most data is released to the public in ways to make the data as use-less as possible. This is particularly true with economic data and SEC financial information. So, none of this type of "noise" or its analogue "noise cancellation" should really be taken at face value. The threshold for even disclosure of such mistakes is typically based on "material adversity", and this is the type of standard which people should look to in this case. The question is simply does it move the needle? Its not clear from reading these multiple threads that it does.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#16

Post by hsksn78728 »

epistasis wrote: post #12
hsksn78728 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that FT's data is shoddy since you made that claim. What specifically are you referring to and what sources are you citing?

For example, from the fine article: >He says the newspaper’s analysis rests on apples-to-oranges comparisons of past data from tax returns mixed with current data from surveys, which makes the conclusions they reach deeply flawed, and contrary to what a wide range of other studies have found.

Please provide proof that FT's data is "shoddy." Piketty admitted that he made up figures because none were available for certain time periods. It's hilarious that the FT is being accused of "shoddy" data (no proof yet), when Piketty could be accused of doing the same (proof available from Piketty himself).

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#17

Post by gress »

hsksn78728 wrote: post #11
adwhit wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting from the response: a 44% wealth share for the top 10% (and a 12.5% wealth share for the top 1%, according to the FT) would mean that Britain is currently one the most egalitarian countries in history in terms of wealth distribution; in particular this would mean that Britain is a lot more equal that Sweden, and in fact a lot more equal than what Sweden as ever been (including in the 1980s). This does not look…

Is this a joke? The UK's own Office for National Statistics derived that 44% figure, not the FT. Shame on you.

Shame on you for your appeal to authority. The question is do the statistics support Piketty's interpretation or not. Not who generated them.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#18

Post by svantana »

adwhit wrote: post #4
conistonwater wrote: post #2

Response in full (pdf): http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Tec...

Quoting from the response: a 44% wealth share for the top 10% (and a 12.5% wealth share for the top 1%, according to the FT) would mean that Britain is currently one the most egalitarian countries in history in terms of wealth distribution; in particular this would mean that Britain is a lot more equal that Sweden, and in fact a lot more equal than what Sweden as ever been (including in the 1980s). This does not look…

Particularly the "12.5% for the top 1%" is ridiculous and obviously too low for any modern, capital-intensive, non-socialist society. The FT should know this from their Economics 101, but it seems their main objective here was to discredit Piketty...

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#19

Post by 001sky »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #3

In this age of metrics everywhere, evidence-based everything, big data... I think what this story actually is, is a reminder that just because something is based on quantitative data, that doesn't make it 'objective' or automatically 'truth'. Quantitative analysis rests on so many choices, as to how to measure, what measurements to use, what statistical formula to use, how to interpret what they say. Each of those ch…

And even then most people don't have a choice--they have to use what data they are "stuck with" and often times that data is provided by people with their own agenda. Public-disclosure requirements is highly politicised and fought-over by various well-financed special interests. And that is not even counting the lawyers, accountants, and advisors paid to dress things up even further after a law or rule is created.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#20

Post by hsksn78728 »

gress wrote: post #14
hsksn78728 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that FT's data is shoddy since you made that claim. What specifically are you referring to and what sources are you citing?

You didn't read the article.

I did. Did you? What specific quotes are you referring to?
Post reply on HN