The take down of Piketty

The left-wing loves Thomas Piketty, but it appears that like most socialists he has lied about and massaged the data that he uses to make all sorts of claims that the luvvies of the left are all wetting their knickers over.

Tom Woods discusses the major errors in the Piketty book.

As one commenter says:

The main problem is not Piketty’s thesis but the fools that take the thesis as gospel and then either influence those in power or come into the position of controlling the levers of power to implement Piketty’s ideas. With that said,what happens when the “rich” refuse to pay Piketty’s suggested worldwide taxes? Or for that matter “shelter their wealth.” In the end Piketty’s ideas are not based on logic,reason or “human action” but strictly on a monopoly on the use of guns and force.

Listen to the discussion and be fully armed to counter the leftist arguments based on Piketty’s hallucinations.

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century was hailed by fashionable opinion upon its release. But it turns out that the author massaged his data, pulled numbers out of thin air, and rewrote history to conform to his biases. We look closely at Piketty’s methods in today’s episode.

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century was supposed to be the definitive condemnation of capitalism as an anti-social engine of inequality, but the closer his work is examined, the more unreliable it turns out to be.

Phil Magness tells the truth in today’s episode!

Phil Magness is academic program director at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, and he also teaches at the University’s School of Public Policy.

Another great comment is:

I see a basic fallacy in Piketty’s assertion; the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth in income, therefore inequality will increase unless we tax away much of the capital.

Isn’t he comparing things which have no correlation? Wouldn’t it be more correct to compare the rate of growth in the sum of capital to the rate of growth of the sum of income, if you were going to make that argument? Rate of return for one area compared to growth rate in another seems like an invalid comparison. They measure different things.

Secondly, his argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that eventually all the wealth would belong to one Super-duper-capitalist, because once the Capitalists had drained the lower and middle classes of all value, the richer Capitalists would need to feed on the less rich Capitalists, until you had Scrooge McDuck, rolling in his pile of all the gold coins on Earth, while everyone else had nothing. Is that feasible? Did he miss the concept that the Capitalist needs customers with money in their pockets to buy the goods made in his factory if he is going to get any rate of return? That these people need to have jobs somewhere, likely working for him or some other Capitalist? How can the sum of capital grow faster than the sum of income without starving off the customers who buy the products?

His other problem, one common to all socialists, is he has no concept of the connection between capital accumulation, increased productivity, and general prosperity, or what part a Capitalist actually plays in production and economic growth. It really sounds like he views capital accumuation as a bad thing that needs to be curtailed to improve the lot of the common man. The basic argument; increased capital leads to increased productivity leads to increased prosperity has to be made, we have to demand that they argue that. The correct metric would be to measure the amount of capital per worker vs average worker income.

These logical attacks need to be made, as much as showing that he cooked the numbers, because they debunk the heart of the Socialist argument.

– Tom Woods

Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.