Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality
This Economist article points out some of the many small academic works that quibble over details with Piketty and Saez. But that&#x27;s not anything new. The major points of their work, and especially of Piketty&#x27;s monumental _Capital for the 21st century_ still stand: that capital is a positive feedback loop in a way that labor is not; that mid-20th-century laws that put brakes on this feedback loop have been removed; that a variety of data sources are confirming growing inequality and market capture particularly in the UK and US; and that the only reasonable solution for this is a tax on owned capital (not on income or cap gains) and the political chances of this happening are slim, etc.<p>And in the end this article is another one in their house style: not particularly informative in the details, they&#x27;re not arguing openly or forcefully against Piketty, but instead bring up enough different nitpicky papers that it starts sowing doubt in the mind of a reader who hasn&#x27;t actually read the book.<p>But then again The Economist has had it out for Piketty (and Saez) for a long time now, they very clearly hate Piketty&#x27;s Capital and keep sniping at it, but can&#x27;t stop themselves from bringing it up all the time. :)<p>At least they are very open about their biases: they promote a view that the solution to all ills is lower taxes and less regulation. However, Piketty&#x27;s analysis and proposed solution directly contradicts that.