- The data underpinning Professor Piketty’s 577-page tome, which has dominated best-seller lists in recent weeks, contain a series of errors that skew his findings. The FT found mistakes and unexplained entries in his spreadsheets, similar to those which last year undermined the work on public debt and growth of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.
Fuckin' "dismal science" indeed.
So if I read this correctly, his calculations on whether income equality is rising in Europe after 1970 is wrong. I wonder if that is enough to undercut his central argument though, as there are numerous other studies on rising income equality in the last decades. Haven't read the book though, but Piketty seems unimpressed by these FT findings. My gut says that the FT is just looking for any reason to dismiss the book because its message is not something that aligns with their readers. I could be wrong though.For example, once the FT cleaned up and simplified the data, the European numbers do not show any tendency towards rising wealth inequality after 1970. An independent specialist in measuring inequality shared the FT’s concerns.
http://brankomi.wix.com/inequality
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-wrong/ The Krugman piece references other conversations about the FT takedown, but the general consensus seems to be most of the flaws are understandable given the datasets, though there is one class of flaws that need explanation. One other point to consider, unlike Rogoff & Reinhart, Piketty has made all the data and formulas he used, available online. R & R refused to release their formulas to the public. They did release them to the student who discovered there "errors." I think hubris did them in there.