Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1 (D)Ummies ecstatic over Piketty too soon..... 
    Senior Member 98ZJUSMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    292
    Newsjock (10,704 posts)

    Financial Times headline: 'Piketty findings undercut by errors' (with response)
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024991380


    Whuuups.....so Math really is hard for some, huh?

    From Ace over at AOSHQ:

    Okay, here's where it gets very Global Warming-esque indeed:

    Contacted by the FT, Prof Piketty, said he had used “a very diverse and heterogeneous set of data sources ... [on which] one needs to make a number of adjustments to the raw data sources."
    Didn't fit the expected conclusion, no doubt.

    For the Warped primitive, it's myopia.

    Star Member Warpy (76,402 posts)
    1. The problem is that he tends to concentrate on the EU in general and France in particular

    and I'm getting a little frustrated plowing through the book because of that myopia.

    I think there is likely a lot to pick over and that errors will be found, not the least of which is his conclusion that government policies do not affect economies. We've seen that to be completely untrue here in the US and if he'd expanded his vision a little, he might have seen it, too.
    But, of course. Wait, what .... government policies affect companies? Earthshaking, I tell you.


    Wait,..... Stupidity to the rescue!!

    Warren Stupidity (37,049 posts)
    2. well he's french.

    also it turns out that the French started keeping extensive systematic records of wealth earlier than England Canada Germany Japan or the US. His focus isn't myopically on France, it is spread across the same set of nations, intentionally, as he is trying to make a general statement about capitalism in the low growth setting of the 21st century, and not a specific statement about any one of those nations.
    Oh. I see.


    Spitfire of ATJ (14,987 posts)
    3. Wait, wasn't this publication caught off guard by the financial crisis?

    I bet they are made up of the same fools who believe the market is all based on psychology.

    Math? Bah!

    "Investor confidence" is what matters!
    Math challenged drooling infants insist that it's..... Math! Well, you're right. Especially, when you:

    From Ace again:

    Skip to 0:52-1:30 to see Giles discussing Piketty just adding a "2" to a formula for no apparent reason, because, Giles speculates, the formula "didn't seem high enough" without adding a little somethin'-somethin'.
    Math is what we modify it to be, wInGnUTZ1111!!!!!111
    Life is hard (D)Ummies. It's even harder when you're stupid.
    -paraphasing John Wayne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Member I_B_Perky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West by God Virginia!
    Posts
    94
    Star Member Warpy (76,402 posts)
    1. The problem is that he tends to concentrate on the EU in general and France in particular

    and I'm getting a little frustrated plowing through the book because of that myopia.

    I think there is likely a lot to pick over and that errors will be found, not the least of which is his conclusion that government policies do not affect economies. We've seen that to be completely untrue here in the US and if he'd expanded his vision a little, he might have seen it, too.
    Yep Warpy... I saw first hand the effect obumbles and the dems policies have on the economy today when I went to the grocery store. Personally I hope all you welfare dummies freaking starve to death... and if that don't happen then I want you to die of heat stroke or freeze to death when obumbles EPA outlaws coal fired electricity.
    Montani semper liberi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    5,337
    Piketty blew it completely.


    In his book, Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Piketty portrays the rich as heirs with privileged access to high rates of return, stating “it is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime’s labor.” He points to the Forbes wealth rankings for support.

    In fact, the Forbes 400—an annual ranking of the richest Americans—indicates wealth is much more fleeting than Piketty suggests and is characterized more by entrepreneurship than by inheritance.

    Key Findings

    Of the Forbes 400 from 1987, 327 people have dropped off the list. Of the remaining 73 people, those with the highest annual rates of return are generally self-made entrepreneurs and investors—not heirs—with an average annual real rate of return of 5.6 percent over the last 26 years.
    The rate of return for the Forbes 400 as a whole, 2.4 percent, is roughly equal to Piketty’s estimated returns for the entire population.
    Wealth today is largely generated by entrepreneurial skill, with the number of entrepreneurs on the Forbes 400 list rising from 40 percent in 1982 to 69 percent in 2011.
    The role of inheritance has diminished over the last generation; the share of the Forbes 400 that grew up wealthy has fallen from 60 percent in 1982 to 32 percent today.
    As with individuals, the wealth of corporations has been highly dynamic over the last 30 years; turnover in the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased in recent decades, with only one corporation (General Electric) remaining on the Dow Jones for more than 100 years.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days, it will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,719
    That guy is nothing but a Dummie/Kos rant with an accent. It was obvious to anyone with a brain from the word "go" that he was full of shit.

    Big hint: anyone who focuses on "income inequality" is automatically disqualified as a serious, honest, or thinking person. The very basis of that notion is that if Bill Gates is rich, then I must somehow be poor, and that Bill Gates' being rich somehow makes me poor. It's zero-sumism, which means that particular someone is too Goddamned stupid to even bother talking to.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    That guy is nothing but a Dummie/Kos rant with an accent. It was obvious to anyone with a brain from the word "go" that he was full of shit.

    Big hint: anyone who focuses on "income inequality" is automatically disqualified as a serious, honest, or thinking person. The very basis of that notion is that if Bill Gates is rich, then I must somehow be poor, and that Bill Gates' being rich somehow makes me poor. It's zero-sumism, which means that particular someone is too Goddamned stupid to even bother talking to.
    You highlight something the linked article supports. Wealth is created, not shifted from losers to winners. 2/3 of the current Fortune 400 are creators.
    SVPete

    Envy is Greed's bigger, more evil, twin.

    Those who can, do.
    Those who know, teach.
    Ignorant incapables, regulate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by SVPete View Post
    You highlight something the linked article supports. Wealth is created, not shifted from losers to winners. 2/3 of the current Fortune 400 are creators.
    Worse yet for the moonbats, wealth is created through risk and (*gasp*) WORK.



    Ohs Noes!

    Last edited by Retread; 08-31-2014 at 10:32 AM. Reason: Formatting
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    Worse yet for the moonbats, wealth is created through risk and (*gasp*) WORK.



    Ohs Noes!
    Indeed! And government's regs to eliminate risk and governments and unions' efforts to take the profit out of work will stop wealth creation and the creation of new products and services. Sadly it won't be only stupid pols, bureaucrats, and union thugs who suffer from those products/services not created.
    SVPete

    Envy is Greed's bigger, more evil, twin.

    Those who can, do.
    Those who know, teach.
    Ignorant incapables, regulate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    619
    Read an article a week or so ago about (5 I think it was) rich families that are no longer rich......one member of those has been rich families was Anderson Cooper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Blue State Hell
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyJeb View Post
    Read an article a week or so ago about (5 I think it was) rich families that are no longer rich......one member of those has been rich families was Anderson Cooper.
    On one of the finance channels last week, it was brought up that 95% of wealth created since Obama has been in office....went to the 1%.

    What I don't understand is, does the feds monthly stimulus measured into the equation of wealth creation or is that a separate accounting?
    Obama isn't the problem. The problem is an electorate that would vote a man like him into office.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •