Econ book acclaimed by left based on faulty premise, factual errors, study finds

Fox News ^ | January 06, 2015 | Maxim Lott

[Bob]

A book by a French economist who became a darling of 99 percenters and his lefty peers is riddled with errors, cherry-picked data and flawed premises, according to two new studies.

Thomas Piketty's “Capital in the 21st Century,” which New York Times columnist and Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman called “the most important economics book of the year — and maybe of the decade,” calls for an 80 percent income tax to stop wealth inequality from increasing. The book earned its author an invitation to the White House to meet with Obama administration Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
...

...
The recent criticisms come on top of issues discovered last year by the Financial Times. Hassett says that, in the end, so many things are off in the book that it affects the conclusion.

“He cherry-picks, the data sometimes don’t match the sources that he cites, and he changes the data to make the charts look better without accurately documenting it,” Hassett said.

[Bob]

Is Thomas Piketty perhaps the Michael Mann of economics?

[MeganC]

No matter the errors we can count on the left to hold to this book as holy writ because it justifies higher taxes.

[Know et al]

Since when has the left paid attention to facts.

As my dad used to say, “Don't confuse them with facts. Their mind is made up.”

[4Liberty]

Grubernomics

[AlmaKing]

“an 80 percent income tax to stop wealth inequality from increasing”

This idea has failed since central planners have existed.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. AE

[Toddsterpatriot]

“He cherry-picks, the data sometimes don’t match the sources that he cites, and he changes the data to make the charts look better without accurately documenting it,”

Of course, that's what left-wingers do.

[mjp]

Piketty, in his book, makes the case that the rich constantly get richer using a graph that illustrates that it has increased steadily in the United States over the last half-century.

In a free society with minimal government interventionism, and a growing division of labor,when the rich get richer, so do the wage earners.In this type of economic system, a growing body of technological knowledge, manifested in ever improved tools and machines, and in man's growing power over the physical world in which he lives, makes possible a continuous increase in the sum total of what is produced. When the total of what can be produced expands, it is simply false to conclude that greater wealth of the rich implies the greater poverty of the poor.

[Excellence]

Good comparison.

[txrefugee]

He’s a member of the Left’s Liars’ Club, which is populated by most university professors, media propagandists, and Democrats.

[fhayek]

I am of the opinion that wealth inequality is a good thing. Edison, Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, Westinghouse, and millions of other entrepreneurs are motivated by the possibility of attaining great wealth from their efforts. If accumulating wealth becomes impossible, why bother? Entrepreneurs create innovations that make the quality of life better, as well as industries which create new jobs.

[Zeneta]

For what it’s worth.

The Left hates capitalism and free markets because it represents the most base and truest expression of Human nature.

This includes themselves !!

They don’t trust capitalism because they don’t trust THEMSELVES !!!!

They know that they are greedy sleaze balls and think everybody is either like them and/or is too stupid to make their own decisions.

They have been programmed to protect, defend and even promote the ignorant in order to prove to themselves and others that they care.

[Secret Agent Man]

let’s start with removing 80% of his wealth. do this for the rest of his life and see how much he likes his theory.

[fhayek]

The thing is, socialism has been proven to not improve the quality of life of ‘the people’. It doesn’t end their misery. It doesn’t end corruption. And I don’t need no high falutin’ graphs to show it. Just ask the question. Which way did people cross the iron curtain? Which way did people swim the Strait of Florida?

[Zeneta]

I’m with you my FRiend.

If you haven’t seen this I highly recommend it.

Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

It’s DA BOMB !!!

[pepsi_junkie]

“an 80 percent income tax to stop wealth inequality from increasing”
This idea has failed since central planners have existed.

Actually, if your goal is to stop wealth inequality from spreading, the best approach is to stop people from acquiring wealth. People will just give up. Easier to just go fishing. So in that sense, this approach will work really really well. If "stopping wealth inequality from increasing" is your goal.

On the other hand, if your goal it to grow the economy, this will fail. Every single time.

But we all know punishing the rich is way more important to lefties than growing the economy or advancing civilization.

[Bob]

If he really believed the crap that he’s spewing, he’d be giving the 80% voluntarily already and trying to convince his leftist friends to do the same.

[TBP]

As is everything else we get from the left.

[Secret Agent Man]

excellent point. none lead by example.

[AlmaKing]

True to your moniker.

My goal for the year is to get through as many Hayek writings as possible. Just finished Road to Serfdom.