Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#31

Post by endersshadow » Thu, May 29, 2014, 6:54 PM UTC

conistonwater wrote: post #21

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…

In this age of metrics everywhere and big data, the data on inequality, a very important social issue, took Piketty and his collaborators, all professional economists, many years of research to assemble and publish. This data is not even big: to paraphrase a joke I read on HN recently, you could do the analysis in Excel and it wouldn't even crash. There is something to be said for systematically gathering a lot more…

The primary issue here is how you can define "wealth" or "rich" and "poor." Income's one measure, sure. But what about the trust fund kids? What about college kids?

The real problem with collecting data like this is that there's no real good source of it. Most of what you get has selection bias, and the other stuff you can get is riddled with holes. And then you try to do it across countries, where definitions change and governments college disparate data at differing granularities and it just gets...frustrating.

An economist's toughest job is finding good data. The analysis is the easy part!

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#32

Post by conistonwater » Thu, May 29, 2014, 6:55 PM UTC

credo wrote: post #10

Unfortunately, ultimately, the research, data and analysis isn't going to matter much. Consider the debate on climate change, 98% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change, but large numbers of Americans (including some of the most powerful politicians and talk-radio hosts) either deny climate change or claim that humans don't do much to cause climate change. I expect the ineq…

If the analogy with climate science works, then the inequality debate will be even worse than the climate change "debate". The straws on which climate change denialism rests are so small because the level of evidence one can reach with physics is so particularly high. Economics probably won't ever reach the same standard of evidence.

To this day, people in politics are still having arguments about the relationship between inflation and fed interest rates, two of the most easily-observed quantities in the economy. Imagine what the inequality debate will be like in comparison.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#33

Post by rosser » Thu, May 29, 2014, 6:55 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #13

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.

Usefulness to whom, and in what context? In the case of the climate change "debate", which has significant parallels to this one, denial is useful to entrenched interests at the expense of everyone else — including, ultimately, those same interests. How "useful" is that, exactly?

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#34

Post by metaphorm » Thu, May 29, 2014, 6:57 PM UTC

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?

maybe you should read Piketty's rebuttal? or any of the other dozens of rebuttals that have been written. burden of proof is on YOU to not be ignorant.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#35

Post by agarcia-deniz » Thu, May 29, 2014, 7:03 PM UTC

gress wrote: post #17

hsksn78728 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that the FT switched from one type of data to another, as per usual truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which would probably still back up Mr Picketty's analysis.

As many people have said, is the UK one of the most equal societies in the world? This seems very unlikely

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#36

Post by chongli » Thu, May 29, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

credo wrote: post #10

Unfortunately, ultimately, the research, data and analysis isn't going to matter much. Consider the debate on climate change, 98% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change, but large numbers of Americans (including some of the most powerful politicians and talk-radio hosts) either deny climate change or claim that humans don't do much to cause climate change. I expect the ineq…

Fortunately (or unfortunately) inequality and poverty have significant, damaging effects on the voting public. It's easy to buy into the idea that global warming is a conspiracy when you walk outside on a cool day. It's not so easy to accept the lies about inequality when you and all your friends and relatives start losing their jobs and have their homes foreclosed.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#37

Post by om2 » Thu, May 29, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

credo wrote: post #10

Unfortunately, ultimately, the research, data and analysis isn't going to matter much. Consider the debate on climate change, 98% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change, but large numbers of Americans (including some of the most powerful politicians and talk-radio hosts) either deny climate change or claim that humans don't do much to cause climate change. I expect the ineq…

The FT data objections are far from the strongest objections to Pinketty's work. Here are a few criticisms seem much more serious than nitpicking the data:

http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Papers/Piketty.pdf http://aida.wss.yale.edu/smith/piketty1.pdf http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2014/05/unp...

In brief, his theoretical mechanisms that supposedly predict and explain greater wealth accumulation are actually unsound, and if anything this seems to be the evolving consensus among economists who study the area.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#38

Post by epistasis » Thu, May 29, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

jstalin wrote: post #24

credo wrote: post #10

Unfortunately, ultimately, the research, data and analysis isn't going to matter much. Consider the debate on climate change, 98% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change, but large numbers of Americans (including some of the most powerful politicians and talk-radio hosts) either deny climate change or claim that humans don't do much to cause climate change. I expect the ineq…

I'm surprised anyone is still repeating that 98% consensus hoax. http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-c...

I'm sorry, are you seriously saying that this paper was a hoax and the data was manufactured, based on a ranty blog post?

That's ridiculous, and just proves the point of the comment you were replying to.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#39

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 29, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

jstalin wrote: post #24

credo wrote: post #10

Unfortunately, ultimately, the research, data and analysis isn't going to matter much. Consider the debate on climate change, 98% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change, but large numbers of Americans (including some of the most powerful politicians and talk-radio hosts) either deny climate change or claim that humans don't do much to cause climate change. I expect the ineq…

I'm surprised anyone is still repeating that 98% consensus hoax. http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-c...

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#40

Post by 001sky » Thu, May 29, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

conistonwater wrote: post #32

credo wrote: post #10

Unfortunately, ultimately, the research, data and analysis isn't going to matter much. Consider the debate on climate change, 98% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change, but large numbers of Americans (including some of the most powerful politicians and talk-radio hosts) either deny climate change or claim that humans don't do much to cause climate change. I expect the ineq…

If the analogy with climate science works, then the inequality debate will be even worse than the climate change "debate". The straws on which climate change denialism rests are so small because the level of evidence one can reach with physics is so particularly high. Economics probably won't ever reach the same standard of evidence. To this day, people in politics are still having arguments about the relationship be…

Physics and weather forecasting are not similar endeavours. Nor is the relationship with fed interest rates and inflation transparent. FYI "people in politics" describes every economist. their businesss model relies on someone listening to them. Those people pay them money. And those are all "people in politics".