Jump to content

Talk:Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of book reviews

[edit]

Book reviews may help Wikipedians expand this article. I propose we compile a list. Here's a start:

These reviews are behind paywalls:

--JHP (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post has compiled a list of reviews in a sarcastic article titled "How to write a Thomas Piketty think piece, in 10 easy steps." --JHP (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an NPR radio interview with Thomas Piketty and Harvard economics department chair Greg Mankiw: Ashbrook, Tom (April 29, 2014). "Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality". On Point. 90.9 WBUR. --JHP (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more thoughts on Piketty's work by several top economists:

--JHP (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daron Acemoğlu (MIT) and James A. Robinson (Harvard) have a scholarly critique viewed from the perspective of their own research here:

--JHP (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception vs. Critiques

[edit]

I have added a "Critiques" section to the article. There was already a "Reception" section. The "Reception" section seemed to be entirely about the overall importance of the work as a whole and was overwhelmingly positive, sort of like the blurbs on book jackets. I didn't want to spoil this, so I created the separate "Critiques" section as a place to address specific elements of the book more in-depth. I envision the "Critiques" section to be sort of like the "Criticism" section of many Wikipedia articles, but criticism sections are generally overwhelmingly negative. I'm hoping that "critiques" is a more balanced word than "criticism" and will encourage more balanced content. --JHP (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this didn't last. Nevermind. --JHP (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section seems to be somewhat haphazard. I would suggest that we try to put some structure into it. Perhaps:

  1. overall impact (sales figures, number of criticms, people who say it is is a major book)
  2. reception of the book's data (that seem to be mostly positive). We should probably cite Chris Giles' piece, but as it seems to have been entirely, I do not think we should put much emphasis on it at the moment.
  3. reception of the book's economic theory (some people say there is good theory, some people says it's good, because there are many negative reviews that could be cited here.
  4. reception of the book's forecast (many people seem to give credence to Piketty's forecast, but those I have found who have discussed them at more length disagree with them.
  5. policy recommendations, which are what much of the book's conclusion is about. They have drawn a lot of criticisms. --Superzoulou (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that following this proposal would improve readability. In the end, the distinctions you propose are not as clear-cut as it may seem.--Herbert81 (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not clear cut ? Many critics even make those distinctions explicitly. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marx in the lede

[edit]

The sentence: The book has been compared to Marx's Das Kapital, improving his analysis by using modern economic data

The first part I think is fine, as this comparison has indeed been made frequently. I do not think however the second part belongs in the lede. It's just the opinion of one reviewer that this Capital "improved" the analysis of the other Capital "using modern economic data". I sort of doubt it's true also, but nm. If there were several reviews out there that made this claim - which is stronger than just comparing the book to Marx - then I'd be fine with it. But it's just one, AFAICT. Remove? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original source doesn't say "improved". It says "updated". The change in wording was probably a good faith attempt to avoid plagiarism. The problem that arises is that "improved" is opinion, while "updated" is fact. There is a second source that backs up the Washington Post's claim. That source is The Economist (already cited elsewhere in the article). It writes "[Piketty's] title is an allusion to Marx’s magnum opus. But he possesses an advantage they lacked: two centuries’ worth of hard data."[1] Given the fact that two sources say essentially the same thing—that Piketty is using historical data unavailable to Marx—I suggest the sentence be fixed, rather than removed. --JHP (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the said sentence in accordance with the sources and the discussion here. But I am now looking at James K. Galbraith's review, which opens with a discussion of how Piketty has a rather simple, if not confused, understanding of capital that is less Marx and more neoclassical. Furthermore, people like Galbraith and Roberto Unger have faulted him for lacking a theory of economic growth, which is really at the center of Marx's Das Kapital. I thus suggest we revise or qualify this sentence somehow. Archivingcontext (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piketty's Formula

[edit]

I believe the article should mention Piketty's formula for the accumulation of wealth. Piketty says that wealth will accumulate if the rate of return on capital is greater than the economic growth rate. This seems to be a central part of his thesis, and it should be in the article. It's also reasonably simple. –MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slight, but important, correction. He says that wealth will concentrate if r>g. Wealth can accumulate without any change in inequality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VM is correct. I think it is worth adding. If we do, I'd like a little thought about the term, as the word "concentrate" is correct, but might be misunderstood. Might be worth checking to see what Piketty said (assuming some RS reports it).--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a translation, there might be variance, but "concentration" seems more accurate in this context than "accumulation". The "centralization of capital" is frequently addressed in conjunction with the "concentration of wealth" in this regard as well. Wikipedia has an article Capital_accumulation with a section Capital_accumulation#Concentration_and_centralization.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong claims require solid support

[edit]

The second sentence of the Contents section reads:

The book thus argues that unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened.

I read the source: [1]

Rather than simply revert and discuss, I thought I might be missing something, so I'm asking if someone else can see how the very strong claim the very democratic order will be threatened is supported by the source. I'll also suggest, that such a strong claim, unless supplemented by links to the original book, requires additional sourcing. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ryan Cooper (March 25, 2014). "Why everyone is talking about Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century". The Week.
Nevermind, I see the support.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to expand on that. I read the support in the book itself, but I do not see it in that particular reference. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From next to last paragraph.
Either we'll have a new birth of reformed capitalism, with his preferred progressive wealth tax and other institutions, or we'll have wealth concentration on such a colossal scale that it will threaten the democratic order.
Piketty is wrong, but the claim is referenced. I'm working on an explanation of why his conclusion is flawed. but of course my sayso cannot be used. I'm sure I'm not the first to find the flaw in his analysis, so we ought to be looking for a reliable source which has identified the flaw, and cite that as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in seeing how people would find fault with that, because it seems to be fairly solid, logically. One way to look at it is with respect to government deregulation of the finance industry--starting with Reagan and culinating with Clinton (via Summers)--coupled with the parallel lowering of corporate and capital gains taxes, etc., and the gutting/stifling of regulatory agencies (SEC anybody?). That entire continuum spells doom, because it contradicts the fundamentals of free-market economics insofar as it doesn't not keep the market free because it allows it to be manipulated by concentrations of wealth. That is to a large extent what Piketty is saying, I think.
So if that is the case, reform means, in part, going back to the post-depression era regulatory regime--and then some, of course--the necessity of which is almost a given.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stated, it is not solid, logically. He concludes that r>g means inevitable increased concentrations of wealth (absent material taxation of assets). That does not logically follow unless you makes some assumptions (failure of rich people to consume or voluntarily distribute wealth) which are false. I haven't yet the whole book, so perhaps I've missed it, but I searched, and read some reviews, and I've seen no indication that he has measured charitable distributions.

You said:

...it allows it to be manipulated by concentrations of wealth. That is to a large extent what Piketty is saying, I think.

He views concentration of wealth as a bad thing, but doesn't suggest, unless I missed it, that the concentration of wealth will lead to market manipulation. Can you give me a page number where you saw that?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way:

  • Q. Are there levels of wealth concentration that will threaten the democratic order? A. Yes, of course
  • Q. Does the observation that r>g mean such wealth concentrations (absent asset taxation) are inevitable? A. No, it does not follow, unless you make some assumptions that are not empirically true.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by former Bank of England governor

[edit]

Here's a review by Mervyn King (economist) who served as Governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2013 [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdhgfgfh (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Gdhgfgfh, Thanks for that link. The article starts off well, but then fails miserably. I do not see it as a useful additional to the article, although there might be something worth excerpting/summarizing. First a nit: I have to wonder if King actually read the book. He asks: "Where is the tax treatment of income and bequests, and the role of primogeniture and other legal forms of inheritance?" Well, primogeniture is discussed several times. I count eight references in the book.
However, my main quibble with King is his treatment of the main point of the book, the implications of r exceeding g. In one case he states "But the fact that r exceeds g is simply a necessary condition for an efficient allocation of an economy’s investment over time...". In another he goes into an explanation of why r exceeds g. (Curiously followed by the observation that risk adjusted r is less than g, which is unsustainable, thus a temporary condition.)
In over-simplified fashion, Piketty's book boils down to:
r is great than g, which leads to problems.
Kings response, worded as if it is a refutation can be summarized as
But, but, r has to be greater than g
That sounds more like support than a challenge. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary by Ryan Cooper

[edit]

I removed this from the "Reception" section.

Ryan Cooper writing in The Week described the book as a "brilliant, surprisingly readable work that synthesizes a staggering amount of careful research to make the case that income inequality is no accident." He also notes that "If Piketty is correct, he has laid the intellectual groundwork for a resurgence of American socialism.

with the edit summary: "Removed Ryan Cooper analysis from The Week. He is not an expert; and the magazine is not a specialist economics publication."

It was restored by User:Cwobeel with the edit summary: "It does not matter that he is not an expert. Not all RS are from experts."

I removed again with: "Actually, it does matter. There have been hundreds of commentaries on this book: many by experts in specialist sources. This is neither. Where we have the choice, we use high quality sources, not some random dude's opinion."

Restored again by User:Cwobeel with "If there are other sources, add them. But don't delete sources just because you believe them unworthy." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per NPOV, we report all significant opinions about a subject. Granted, Copper is not an authority economics, same as many journalists are not experts in may subjects, yet they write about a myriad of subjects, and we quote them in article if they are published in a WP:RS. The Week is a reliable source and as such we can include commentary published in that magazine. Here is the page on Copper at The Week [3] . So as long as we have that text fully attributed to Cooper and to The Week, there is no reason to delete the content. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to engage in an edit war over this, but I still believe that we can quote that source. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

The reception section is just a name list of opinions. If you want a decent article, it requires a cogent exposé, with some detail, of the theses in the book, followed by a section dealing with criticisms, not a scrabble of names and their generic opinions, but a thematically sequential outline of the several issus his critics have fingered as being problematical in theory or inadequate to the historical complexities.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to comment on the size of the Contents section (c. 350 words) vs the Reception section (c. 1400 words). I know reception is both important and easy to reference and expand, but surely the contents of a 696-page book could be described in more detail. Also, without a reasonable Contents section I don't think it is possible to fully understand the issues raised in the Reception section.
Anyway, just an opinion... GregorB (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The reception section should attempt to summarise the reception and present it in a condense manner. I'm well aware of how difficult this is. However, the current list of names and their quotes tell us almost nothing. Are they representative? Well chosen? Most readers won't know. Most readers won't read them, of course, because they won't wade through a long list of opinions like that, but even if they do, it won't necessarily help much. I appreciate the time and effort spent behind the current section, but we could present the information in a better way. /Julle (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TED talk

[edit]

I don't see that this belongs in the article, but editors may be interested in Piketty's TED talk--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derman

[edit]

I've removed the following from the 'reception' section:

"Emanuel Derman has refrained from reading the book on the grounds that, though Piketty appears less cocky than most economists, that profession in general is consistently wrong in its prognoses and reluctant to acknowledge how risky expert economic advice is, despite the fearsome influence economists exercise in the modern world." [4]

This seems to me to be out of place, and probably shouldn't be in the article at all. As the source makes clear, Derman's reason for not reading the book aren't specific to Piketty - his views on what he describes as the "incestuous yet masturbatory quality" of works by economists in general. Though this may be a revealing comment as regards the outlook a professor of 'financial engineering', it says next to nothing about Piketty's work as such. I'm inclined to think that including people who haven't read books in 'reception' sections is a questionable exercise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a public declaration one hasn't read the book, with reasons giving for why not, from a prominent financial engineer, is itself a criticism of the field whicxh Piketty's book is challenging.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize Winning Economists

[edit]

Do we really have to attach the prefix 'Nobel Prize winning' to every person who has won the prize? It is not relevant to the article and reeks of appeal to authority fallacy. The fact is, their Nobel Prize is irrelevant to their opinions on this book.

I will edit the prefix out, I really don't think it should be in. Cacra (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

r > g is a "marketing ploy"

[edit]

This article presently states that r > g is "The book's central thesis", even in the opening paragraph. However, Piketty himself has said that his simple formula was a marketing device to get his message across, and resists single formula-summaries of his work. He made these remarks in a lecture for the Harvard Law School, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofjozfEr-U. FNAS (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of David Harvey

[edit]

I understand the importance of acknowledging the criticism from varying schools of economic thought when addressing such a subject, but does the inclusion of David Harvey's criticism actually add anything? Despite coming from a fringe school of economics, he is treated with sufficient validity to warrant appreciable coverage, including a quote, in two subsections, with his presented criticism amounting to little more than an accusation of Piketty not being Marxist enough. --Latinikon (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century&oldid=1218331165"