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

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#21

Post by conistonwater »

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 data than governments collect now, especially income and wealth data in this case. Not because it benefits anyone economically right now, but because without collecting it now, it is that much harder to reconstruct it later.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#22

Post by MaysonL »

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 me, the money quote comes from Economist's article on the subject:

Scott Winship, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute who disputes Mr Piketty's overarching narrative about inequality wrote on Twitter last night: "I’ve spent time with Piketty U.S. wealth ineq[uality] spreadsheet and LOTS of time with his income data. He’s not up to funny business."

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#23

Post by baddox »

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.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#24

Post by jstalin »

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...

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#25

Post by soneca »

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…

exactly what is described here:

"Why do people persist in believing things that just aren't true?"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/mariakonnikova/2014/05...

HN thread about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7769266

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#26

Post by jforman »

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…

An excellent book on this topic is "A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England." It examines what "truth" means in a scientific context by going back to its roots as a discipline.

The tl;dr version is that knowledge (even "hard" scientific knowledge) cannot be meaningfully acquired by a single person independent of a community that makes common assumptions, since going to very first principles for even the simplest analysis is totally unwieldy. Take something like simple genetics — we rely on the testimony of a lot of people just to accept the utility of a basic Punnett square.

I much preferred Summer's assessment of Piketty to FT's: he was measured and responsible in his criticism, and correctly noted that it'll take years for serious academics to sift through the merit of the book. Alas, responsible discussion is hard to come by when it comes to data that challenges peoples' closely-held values.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#27

Post by hsksn78728 »

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 FT is citing figures from the UK's official records. Shame on the FT for citing statistics that run counter to Piketty's own figures (which he asserted was 71%)?

Wow.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#28

Post by [deleted] »

001sky wrote: post #15

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 lo…

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#29

Post by Malarkey73 »

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?

There is a 10 page rebuttal .. but if you insist I précis the killer points for you then:

The first of two substantive changes the FT notes that greatly changes Pikettys European wealth trend would be the wealth estimate for Britain.

The FT choose a Fig of 44% they have got from a wealth survey carried out by the ONS (Britains govt statistical office) - compared to Pikettys 71%.

The 71% is from estate tax data from Britains tax authorities (HMRC) and is the same method used for the whole time-series.

The FT take that historical time-series then drop the 44% ONS figure in for the most recent time points.

So according to FT methods - Britain unlike the US and the rest of Europe has had declining inequality throughout its period of Thatcherite financial deregulation.

This is just stupid.

The second substantive difference the FT note is that Piketty should weight the 4 European series Britain, Sweden, France, Germany by the size of their economies rather than a straight average.

He could but it only makes difference to the overall European trend if you accept their crazy estimate of declining British inequality. Otherwise Briatin is similar to the other 3 and it make no difference.

Thats about the main points.

Re: Thomas Piketty Responds to Criticism of His Data

#30

Post by NorthGuy1 »

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'm interested to know where you think the debate should lie. Do you believe that it should be debated empirically among economic journals or in the court of public opinion? Because the book is a compilation of the former and we are only seeing doubt in the latter.
Post reply on HN