Thomas Piketty got his sums wrong!

[RogerS]

http://xkcd.com/980/
Some interesting data here.

This section in particular.

I can't find any reference to the sources for his numbers, John? Maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

 

[John Brown]

No. I expect he made them all up.

 

[John Brown]

http://xkcd.com/980/sources/
Here is a link to the spreadsheet containing all the sources. The URL was clearly indicated in the top right hand corner of the graphic.

However, I've no doubt that all the sources are made up as well.

 

[bugbear]

http://xkcd.com/980/sources/
Here is a link to the spreadsheet containing all the sources. The URL was clearly indicated in the top right hand corner of the graphic.

However, I've no doubt that all the sources are made up as well.

Gotta love a cartoon with citations!

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

.....
Picketty's basic conclusion that wealth inequality is getting worse is both wrong and completely irrelevant. .....

Phew that's a relief - we don't have to read the book then!
Glad to know that everything is really alright everywhere.
Now let us sing together: "All things bright and beautiful....- the rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate" etc

I repeat;

I'm a bit bemused about all this fuss surrounding 'wealth inequality'.

Talking to my late grandmother (born 1905) about 'poverty' was interesting. She was brought up in Liverpool, and had some very vivid stories about Scotland Road and the surrounding area in the 1930s. When people talk about children in rags, barefoot and with little more to eat than jam sandwiches once a day, you'd better believe it - she saw it. A few unfortunate souls did actually starve to death. Wartime rationing actually inproved the diet for some people. Thank the Lord we don't have poverty to that extent now.

I really don't care whether Thomas Picketty's figures are selective, misinterpreted or outright rigged - most economic texts are written to push a particular political point of view, and I don't suppose this one's any different. Most people know that, and take the books accordingly. It gives the chattering classes and Islington bien-penseurs something to yadder about, that's all.

There may well be a small handful of spectacularly rich people about. So what. The more important point is the lot of those at the other end of the scale, and the very poorest are better off now than they were in the 1930s. There's no reason now why everybody should not have at least a roof of some sort over their heads, and food regularly. There's still a lot to do - improving job opportunities, education, and a whole host of other things, and governments of all stripe have tried in their different ways to improve things, either with direct handouts or by improving economic conditions for all. Both approaches can be criticised (and frequently are), but the intention of both is general improvement for all, thus giving the poorest an even break. It's also true that some human actions are self-destructive (drug addiction, for example) and helping people who end up in that condition is harder. We haven't really found answers to those sorts of problems, yet; whatever those answers turn out to be, I suspect they will only be economic to a very small degree.

 

[Jacob]

.....
Picketty's basic conclusion that wealth inequality is getting worse is both wrong and completely irrelevant. .....

Phew that's a relief - we don't have to read the book then!
Glad to know that everything is really alright everywhere.
Now let us sing together: "All things bright and beautiful....- the rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate" etc

I repeat;

1 Why?
2 You haven't repeated -you've edited out the phrase I quoted. Why?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

1) It was a hint that you might like to give some indication of having read, and understood, the whole of my original post. Currently, I do not have that impression.

2) Because you quoted it, it seemed pointless to repeat it. I also edited out the final two sentences, "What is relevant is seeing that the poorest have sufficient to sustain life, and the chance to better it. Where the richest are doesn't matter a fig." This probably summarises the post, though reading all of it will help you to understand why I wrote those sentences.

Your habit of cherry-picking odd quotes out of context serves only to reinforce the impression that you are blinkered, unthinking, and utterly unwilling to consider any reasoned argument that does not blindly support your prejudices.

 

[John Brown]

With respect, Chesirechappie, these are your opinions, not facts.
I understand that one theory has it that as long as the "overall pot" keeps increasing, there's more for everyone. That may be true, I'm not an economist.
What I don't understand, however, is how traded options, derivatives, hedge funds etc. serve to make the pot bigger.

 

[RogerS]

With respect, Chesirechappie, these are your opinions, not facts.
I understand that one theory has it that as long as the "overall pot" keeps increasing, there's more for everyone. That may be true, I'm not an economist.
What I don't understand, however, is how traded options, derivatives, hedge funds etc. serve to make the pot bigger.

Because they indirectly made available cheap money ?

 

[John Brown]

Surely cheap money serves to increase debt, not the "overall pot".

 

[RogerS]

Surely cheap money serves to increase debt, not the "overall pot".

You could well be right, John. Having said that QE which had to be put into place after it all went belly-up...that increased the pot!

 

[John Brown]

Too true!
I'm off to increase my pot now, courtesy of a Guinness or two.