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

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#51

Post by epistasis »

pdeuchler wrote: post #42
epistasis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dr. Tol was appointed to both the Copenhagen Consensus and the IPCC, is an accomplished and respected economist, and very often is a voice of reason for both sides of the debate. I hope you can appreciate the meta-irony of declaring a blog post "ranty" to invalidate its findings and then going on to accuse the parent of proving a point about partisan ideology.

First, the blog post does not rise to calling the initial survey a hoax. So that addition of jstalin's, is well, completely ridiculous and inappropriate.

Second, the blog post is ranty (and many if not most scientists are ranty, in case you hadn't noticed). The associated comment manuscript isn't evidence of a hoax. I'm not surprised it wasn't accepted anywhere. There's no meta-irony in pointing that out.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#52

Post by chongli »

econghiy wrote: post #49
chongli wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Several Asian countries like Singapore and Hong Kong have extremely high inequality rates yet far lower unemployment rates than the US. Where is your proof that inequality causes job losses?

I never said inequality causes job losses. On the contrary, job losses cause inequality.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#53

Post by econghiy »

chongli wrote: post #52
econghiy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several Asian countries like Singapore and Hong Kong have extremely high inequality rates yet far lower unemployment rates than the US. Where is your proof that inequality causes job losses?

I never said inequality causes job losses. On the contrary, job losses cause inequality.

But countries like France and Spain have persistently high unemployment rates yet much lower inequality than countries like Singapore and Hong Kong.

How do you explain that?

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#54

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

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 expect the inequality debate to play out in a similar fashion. Many economists may agree with Piketty.

Whilst "many" economists most surely do agree with Piketty's data, it is closer to 50-50 than the 98% found in climate science.

Additionally, the number of economists who agree with Piketty's data but disagree with him over it's implications (that's the important part) will be smaller still.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#55

Post by bobcostas55 »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #7
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…

Having lived both in Sweden and in Britain you don't even need data to know this isn't very plausible. That said, Sweden is getting a bigger gap between the highest earners and the lowest at a fast rate. "the most equal country in the world is becoming less so." -The Economist http://www.economist.com/node/21564412

You're confusing stocks with flows. Wealth inequality and income inequality are completely different things, and Sweden being more unequal than the UK does not seem at all implausible. Here's one paper from a few years ago showing exactly that result: http://darp.lse.ac.uk/papersdb/Cowell_(Hills_Wealth_UK).pdf

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#56

Post by EdwardDiego »

econghiy wrote: post #53
chongli wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said inequality causes job losses. On the contrary, job losses cause inequality.

But countries like France and Spain have persistently high unemployment rates yet much lower inequality than countries like Singapore and Hong Kong. How do you explain that?

Deliberate government policy to prevent inequality.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#57

Post by om2 »

epistasis wrote: post #51
pdeuchler wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr. Tol was appointed to both the Copenhagen Consensus and the IPCC, is an accomplished and respected economist, and very often is a voice of reason for both sides of the debate. I hope you can appreciate the meta-irony of declaring a blog post "ranty" to invalidate its findings and then going on to accuse the parent of proving a point about partisan ideology.

First, the blog post does not rise to calling the initial survey a hoax. So that addition of jstalin's, is well, completely ridiculous and inappropriate. Second, the blog post is ranty (and many if not most scientists are ranty, in case you hadn't noticed). The associated comment manuscript isn't evidence of a hoax. I'm not surprised it wasn't accepted anywhere. There's no meta-irony in pointing that out.

The post seems like strong evidence that the finding of the paper is wrong, or at least not justified by the study performed. "Hoax" taken literally would imply deliberate malfeasance, and that doesn't seem to be proven

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#58

Post by pavlov »

baddox wrote: post #23
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…

Climate change and macroeconomics are really similar in this regard. I think the main reason there is so much controversy is because the science is so entangled with the politics , and that probably applies to the experts just as much as it applies to the average onlooker.

Climate research is nothing like economics. Politics is involved in how we should react to the scientific results, but that doesn't mean the science itself is "entangled" with politics.

You might just as well suggest that paleontology is entangled with religion because its findings offend some people's religious views.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#59

Post by om2 »

chongli wrote: post #52
econghiy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several Asian countries like Singapore and Hong Kong have extremely high inequality rates yet far lower unemployment rates than the US. Where is your proof that inequality causes job losses?

I never said inequality causes job losses. On the contrary, job losses cause inequality.

Job losses as the mechanism of inequality would very little nothing to do with Piketty's claims, which are about concentration of wealth at the very top due to intrinsic properties of returns on capital. Piketty's theory doesn't involve this either causing or being caused by job losses. So seeing unemployed people and taking it as confirmation of his work would be incorrect.

(In any case if you are correct about direction of causation, then surely we should worry about how to reduce job losses than how to take wealth away from the rich.)

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#60

Post by ThomPete »

rosser wrote: post #33
ThomPete wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Thats the point. There is no truth only useful perspectives.
Post reply on HN