

Thomas Piketty's exhaustive inequality data turns out to be flawed - asg
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c9ce1a54-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl

======
disillusioned
The Economist does a quick dive into the issues raised by this piece and why
they don't fundamentally change anything:

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequali...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0)

> The fourth question is whether the book's conclusions are called into
> question by Mr Giles's analysis. If the work that has been presented by Mr
> Giles represents the full extent of the problems, then the answer is a
> definitive no, for three reasons. First, the book rests on much more than
> wealth-inequality figures. Second, the differences in the wealth-inequality
> figures are, with the exception of Britain, too minor to alter the picture.
> And third, as Mr Piketty notes in his response, Chapter 10 is not the only
> analysis of wealth inequality out there, and forthcoming work by other
> economists (some conclusions of which can be seen here) suggests that Mr
> Piketty's figures actually understate the true extent of growth in the
> concentration of wealth.

