back to Zhao though. Quoting Picketty. Seriously? He has a credible case, why wreck it linking to that spreadsheet dilitante?
Who's the "spreadsheet dilitante [sic]" to whom you refer? Zhao or Piketty?
If the latter, your level of ignorance about a rather impressive -- regardless of whether you agree with it or not -- piece of empirical economics (as is this blog post author's and Zhao's drivel) is rivaled only by your lack of ability to spell.
I confess I tried to read it, I really did. Then end up skimming through. The most impressive bit was the size of it. I am not alone of course, it is right up there on the most unread bestseller list. Cheap virtue signaling really. On the quality of his data, income inequality figures are notoriously difficult and need to be taken with a grain of salt. Not treated as gospel.
Glad to hear that. I personally don't think he was going for virtue (or vice). Just documenting facts as best as he could find them, on the back of a sound theoretical model. Which is what good economics tries to do. If you disagree, you really should attempt to either rebut his arguments or his numbers.
Moreover, there is a fair amount of distance between your calling him a "spreadsheet dilettante" and now saying "not gospel," as I am sure you'll agree.
back to Zhao though. Quoting Picketty. Seriously? He has a credible case, why wreck it linking to that spreadsheet dilitante?
Who's the "spreadsheet dilitante [sic]" to whom you refer? Zhao or Piketty?
If the latter, your level of ignorance about a rather impressive -- regardless of whether you agree with it or not -- piece of empirical economics (as is this blog post author's and Zhao's drivel) is rivaled only by your lack of ability to spell.
back to Zhao though. Quoting Picketty. Seriously? He has a credible case, why wreck it linking to that spreadsheet dilitante?
Who's the "spreadsheet dilitante [sic]" to whom you refer? Zhao or Piketty?
If the latter, your level of ignorance about a rather impressive -- regardless of whether you agree with it or not -- piece of empirical economics (as is this blog post author's and Zhao's drivel) is rivaled only by your lack of ability to spell.
Piketty's work has serious critiques? Of course it does, as does most substantive theoretical or empirical work in economics, including terrific work done by people like Friedman and von Mises. That's what you would and should expect, and it's through such argumentation and refutation that knowledge advances.
No one serious argues that Piketty's theory and the broad strokes of his empirical analysis aren't sound. It's quite well-accepted that they are, even amongst a vast majority of his critics. Some people are, however (and legitimately), against some of his policy proposals (as I am).
Are you suggesting that inequality hasn't risen in most economies in the past few decades, that returns to capital haven't been higher than returns to labor, that people entrenched in positions of wealth and authority don't use that wealth and authority to try and perpetuate it by buying off the political class? Really? What do you think explains the rise of a Trump or a Sanders, or a Brexit vote?
Piketty's analyses -- if not his recommendations -- are incredibly solid. They are substantive and thoughtful. The casual dismissal by some folks here using silly little epithets (and who can't even spell his name correctly) are nothing short of foolish and ignorant. That is my main point.
Comments
Moreover, there is a fair amount of distance between your calling him a "spreadsheet dilettante" and now saying "not gospel," as I am sure you'll agree.
Piketty's work has serious critiques? Of course it does, as does most substantive theoretical or empirical work in economics, including terrific work done by people like Friedman and von Mises. That's what you would and should expect, and it's through such argumentation and refutation that knowledge advances.
No one serious argues that Piketty's theory and the broad strokes of his empirical analysis aren't sound. It's quite well-accepted that they are, even amongst a vast majority of his critics. Some people are, however (and legitimately), against some of his policy proposals (as I am).
Are you suggesting that inequality hasn't risen in most economies in the past few decades, that returns to capital haven't been higher than returns to labor, that people entrenched in positions of wealth and authority don't use that wealth and authority to try and perpetuate it by buying off the political class? Really? What do you think explains the rise of a Trump or a Sanders, or a Brexit vote?
Piketty's analyses -- if not his recommendations -- are incredibly solid. They are substantive and thoughtful. The casual dismissal by some folks here using silly little epithets (and who can't even spell his name correctly) are nothing short of foolish and ignorant. That is my main point.