Yeap... They should've read his bio a little better. This guy's from the most hardcore math school of the country. Less than a few hundreds accepted every year for the whole country ( and only based on a contest in which most top science students participate), and he got inside 2 years younger than normal. He isn't the typical economist. Attacking him on raw data analysis was probably the most daring thing to do.
Burden of proof is on you to prove that FT's data is shoddy since you made that claim. What specifically are you referring to and what sources are you citing?
There is a 10 page rebuttal .. but if you insist I précis the killer points for you then:
The first of two substantive changes the FT notes that greatly changes Pikettys European wealth trend would be the wealth estimate for Britain.
The FT choose a Fig of 44% they have got from a wealth survey carried out by the ONS (Britains govt statistical office) - compared to Pikettys 71%.
The 71% is from estate tax data from Britains tax authorities (HMRC) and is the same method used for the whole time-series.
The FT take that historical time-series then drop the 44% ONS figure in for the most recent time points.
So according to FT methods - Britain unlike the US and the rest of Europe has had declining inequality throughout its period of Thatcherite financial deregulation.
This is just stupid.
The second substantive difference the FT note is that Piketty should weight the 4 European series Britain, Sweden, France, Germany by the size of their economies rather than a straight average.
He could but it only makes difference to the overall European trend if you accept their crazy estimate of declining British inequality. Otherwise Briatin is similar to the other 3 and it make no difference.
Perhaps you would care to point to the part of the PDF that indicates the data are unreliable, and to comment on the plausibility argument, i.e. that the FT's analysis indicates that "Britain is currently one the most egalitarian countries in history in terms of wealth distribution" and in particular that it is far more equal than Sweden is or has ever been?
For me, the money quote comes from Economist's article on the subject:
Scott Winship, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute who disputes Mr Piketty's overarching narrative about inequality wrote on Twitter last night:
"I’ve spent time with Piketty U.S. wealth ineq[uality] spreadsheet and LOTS of time with his income data. He’s not up to funny business."
>He says the newspaper’s analysis rests on apples-to-oranges comparisons of past data from tax returns mixed with current data from surveys, which makes the conclusions they reach deeply flawed, and contrary to what a wide range of other studies have found.
maybe you should read Piketty's rebuttal? or any of the other dozens of rebuttals that have been written. burden of proof is on YOU to not be ignorant.