Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "Facts Are Stubborn Things . . . As Thomas Piketty Is Beginning to Find Out" 19
The charges are devastating, and there is plenty to back them up. And again, let's be abundantly clear: The Financial Times is accusing Thomas Piketty of dishonesty, of making up his arguments, of actively trying to mislead readers and actively trying to mischaracterize inequality trends. This mischaracterization leads to policy prescriptions on Piketty's part that are both entirely unrealistic in their design and implementation, and, more importantly, are wholly unsupported by the actual data on inequality . The main thrust of Thomas Piketty's book is entirely undermined, and his arguments and conclusions are annihilated. It is hard to imagine a more comprehensive refutation.
. .
The second thing we ought to note is that neither Giles, nor Giugliano, nor the Financial Times would have discovered that Piketty's books is fundamentally flawed if they listened to Paul Krugman, who famously said on his blog that "if you think you've found an obvious hole, empirical or logical, in Piketty, you're very probably wrong. He's done his homework!" Yes, that was a real statement by Paul Krugman, and yes, it ought to haunt him for the rest of his lifeâ"and beyond. We now know that it is more accurate to say that Piketty fudged his homework. I doubt that Krugman knew that Piketty's conclusions were pretty much made up out of thin air-if he did, there is truly something rotten in the state of economics-but the point is that Krugman tried his damnedest to ensure that no one would take a critical eye to Piketty's data and conclusions.
And this is the same parade of no-talent rodeo clowns that embrace anthropogenic global warming (or whatever the term of the week is), abortion, ObamaCare, and pretty much every other intellectual cock-up going today. May God require of these idiots their idiocy.
If only... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. The "fake but accurate" side will just give a big shrug and say so what. Wealth inequality exists, even if a given report about it is bogus. And they believe wealth inequality is problem, so like Al Gore's film, if it raises awareness, it still has tremendous value.
That's why Paul Krugman and others want everyone to look at it uncritically. Because the point is not in the details, but the advocacy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, kinda like religion... Waddya know, evangelism at work. As if your "truthers" are any different from the other wackos out there.
Re: (Score:1)
Amazing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They should ask the Chinese (Score:1)
I am a Chinese from China
We Chinese who survived the People's Commune and the Cultural Revolution can tell you that the idea of a "Total Wealth Equality" among all people is but a big BULLSHIT
Even inside the People's Commune where supposedly every single person get to share every single thing equally, INEQUALITY STILL EXISTED
Those who belong to the Communist Party would get more than those who weren't
Those who had connections (in Mandarin, it's called Guan Xi ) to someone in the top echelon got to enjoy mu
Re: (Score:1)
Your conclusion is wrong (Score:2)
Do
Re: (Score:1)
Your conclusion that people who believe in the existence of wealth inequality
What's to 'believe', in any religious sense? That there is a distribution amongst incomes is, I should think, about as controversial as the sunrise. I'm as confident that a distribution of incomes exists as I am that the climate is not constant, and that you were you at the point your information was 100% present, i.e., conception. These are matters of simple, common sense.
would for some reason support the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is utter bullshit.
I mean, I agree that Krugman's output is largely scatalogical; is that your point?
That bill was - as you yourself demonstrated - spoon fed to congress by way of the Heritage Foundation.
And speaking of scatalogical cling-ons, you continue t
Re: (Score:2)
Going on...
Your conclusion that people who believe in the existence of wealth inequality
What's to 'believe', in any religious sense? That there is a distribution amongst incomes is, I should think, about as controversial as the sunrise. I'm as confident that a distribution of incomes exists
If that is the case, then you cannot argue that Piketty's argument is complete bullshit, you can only argue that the magnitude he suggests is wrong. Your current text and tense suggest that you are trying to complet
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Any realistic person realizes that HIIBA 2010 guarantees that in the absence of the actual breakup of our republic we won't see a single payer system for at least another 20 years (and for that matter if the country broke up into 2 or more new countries then HIIBA 2010 is irrelevant and single payer would have no bearing
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot, however, to tell us how this also prepares for a reptoid NWO.
After decades of training people to look to the government for handouts, we're supposed to beg for relief from all this madness. I think we're supposed to vote in Her Majesty to tidy everything with Single Payer starting in 2016. Or was there some other plan?