Anti-Piketty: Capital for the 21st-Century

by Jean-Philippe Delsol (Editor), Emmanuel Martin (Editor), Jeffrey A. Miron (Preface)

Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century has enjoyed great success, both among academics and the general public. Its influence on politics also cannot be denied. His book provided something people had waited for - a new scientific theory about wealth and inequality. However, there were major criticisms of not only the vision, the empirical and historical work, and the theory but also of the political recommendations of Thomas Piketty. Anti-Piketty: Capital for the 21st Century collects those essential criticisms from twenty specialists--economists, historians and tax experts--who provide scientific and rigorous arguments against Piketty's central theses. These researchers, who come from many countries and many backgrounds, examine the notions of inequality, growth, wealth and capital that Piketty treated in his book. They show in new ways how inequality did not explode, the rich are not rentiers but rather entrepreneurs who take risks and create millions of jobs, that wealth can not indefinitely grow faster than economic growth, and that radical taxation does not solve problems but aggravates them.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Business, Current Affairs, Politics, History

272 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2015

Reviews

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was taken aback when I read the Foreword by Tom Palmer from the Cato Institute: ‘Thomas Piketty has written a big book. A very big book. I know because I read it.’ That sounds like... Trump?

So the whole book is an endless critique of Piketty’s person (Marxist), methods (‘everything was done by Piketty’), conclusion (r>g is not possible), conclusion (the rich deserve less tax, because they are good people. Very good people), and his prejudice (he is just jealous and hates the rich).

Wow. Sure, Piketty’s book has its flaws. However it became a bestseller because it feels right. Rising inequality, the deterioration of the middle class because of globalisation and mechanisation, ravage of the old industrial towns and boom of the big cities, are tearing societies apart.

This is actually a must read for anyone who has read Piketty. It really makes you agree with Piketty more after reading this.

[Matthew Carr · Rating 1 out of 5]

Constant strawman arguments, overt and clear partisan attacks on Picketty as a person, and clearly a piece of rampant capitalist apologetic propaganda funded by right wing “think tanks”

[Ciarán · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some valid points hidden among much partisan sophistry, straw man arguments and general dismissal. Partly lacking due to the format of short essays, which doesn't leave room to present much (or in a lot of cases, any) data to support the arguments.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent slicing and dicing of one of the most overrated books in recent years.

Given Piketty's trumpeting of his 'data', perhaps the best chapter is that of Magness and Murphy, who show how little actual data Piketty uses and how much is, well, made up. Also impressive is Acemoğlu and Robinson's contribution. This examines whether the return in capital is correlated with income inequality, as Piketty's theory proposes (Piketty himself does not actually test his theory at all in his vast tome). Acemoglu and Robinson find that Piketty's theory doesn't match the facts.

Apparently few people finished this book. They were ill advised even to bother starting.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anti-Picketty delivers a necessary and devastating takedown of Capital in the 21st Century, exposing its reliance on bad data, bad analytical methods, and bad sociology, and demonstrating the fundamental wrongness of its conclusions.

I only note one flaw. While addressing nearly every point in Picketty’s book (and pretty well), several times it sidesteps Picketty’s concerns about the effect of wealth concentration on power dynamics. It talks about freedom, which is often more important... but sometimes relative power matters and I think it’s a necessary issue to grapple with in “our current political moment.”

[Nikolaj K · Rating 1 out of 5]

Where is the data

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 2 out of 5]

Anti-Piketty est un livre collectif orchestré par Jean-Philippe Delsol, qui vise à réfuter et rassembler plusieurs critiques au livre majeur de Piketty.

J'ai failli jeter le livre au cours de la première moitié, tant les premiers chapitres sont remplis d'une rhétorique malhonnête et contreproductive. Jean-Philippe Delsol lui-même est le pire d'entre eux, incapable de restituer correctement une seule idée de Piketty. Très pénible à lire. Même son chapitre sur les calculs de données me semble au final bien excessif: les torts reprochés à Piketty quant à certains calculs approximatifs sont sont-ils si graves ? Ne sont-ils pas au contraire très répandu ? Et en plus, Piketty a été extrêmement transparent quant à ses données et ses calculs, ce qui met à mal les insinuations de malhonnêteté que lui décroche Delsol.

Heureusement toutes les contributions ne sont pas de ce genre. L'essai d'Acemoglu est exactement ce que je recherchais, en faisant remarquer que les inégalités sont bien plus créées par des politiques et des institutions que des "grandes lois" du capital, ou bien cet autre essai qui fait simplement remarquer que la valeur du capital vient de son rendement et non l'inverse.

Cette poignée de contribution m'a été très utile. Les 80% restants m'ont servi à m'entraîner à la gestion de la colère

[Vance Ginn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good info by different authors in this book but it’s a bit repetitive, which is understandable because there’s much wrong with Piketty’s work. This is why I gave it 3 stars and I’ve read most of this before elsewhere.

If you want an easy to read book with different perspectives on why Piketty’s work and solutions are from a Marxist, communist perspective, then read this book.

[Julien V · Rating 2 out of 5]

L’apport récent de Thomas Piketty à la science économique est majeur, de par la qualité de sa recherche empirique et de son impact sur le dialogue public quant aux politiques économiques. Mais il ne faudrait pas non plus déifier Piketty : toute démonstration analytique ou même statistique est empreinte des choix faits par son auteur, choix qui sont parfois de nature idéologique. De plus, le Capital de Piketty n’est pas immunisé aux erreurs conceptuelles ou aux inférences statistiques douteuses. Comme disent les économistes : on peut torturer les chiffres jusqu’à temps qu’ils avouent. Néanmoins, la démonstration de Piketty est remarquable par son objectivité et sa transparence, ce qui laisse un travail difficile à ses détracteurs. Mais tant mieux si le Capital au XXIème siècle fait redoubler d’ardeur la critique conservatrice, si ce n’est que pour la sortir de sa complaisance.

Alors, Anti-Piketty, comme ouvrage critique, accomplit-il un travail satisfaisant à cet égard? Ma réponse : pas vraiment. Pour être honnête, sa seule grande qualité est d’avoir assemblé (et traduit en français!) un bon nombre d’essais déjà existants, dont le fameux article de Acemoglu et Robinson. À elle seule, cette critique mérite la lecture du livre. Par contre, ce n’est pas en soi un apport original de l’Anti-Piketty, et le reste de l’ouvrage tombe dans les catégories suivantes : lecture idéologique biaisée, analyse superficielle, inepties ou argumentaire de mauvaise foi (« homme de paille » et autres sophismes), changement de sujet (oh, bien sûr que les revenus sont inégaux, mais pourquoi ne pas parler de l’espérance de vie, hein?, ou de l’égalité en droit plutôt que l’égalité matérielle?).

Apparemment, Piketty n’aime pas les capitalistes, est « jaloux », ce qui est hilarant comme sottise quand elle provient de ce ramassis divers de larbins et de laquais de la classe dominante. Piketty serait secrètement marxiste, vraiment? Enfin, il y a de l’attention indue à des détails mineurs (cherry-picking en anglais, ou, en bon québécois, de l’enculage de mouches). Ce qui ne veut pas dire que Piketty n’aurait pas dû mieux tenir compte des changements dans la fiscalité américaine ou bien qu’il devrait faire gaffe à ne pas comparer des éléments du PIB avec des éléments du PNB. Par contre, ce dit enculage de mouches ne réussit pas à démontrer que les thèses de Piketty devraient être renversées, bien au contraire.

Certes, les inepties et l’analyse superficielles sont faciles à moquer, mais il est tout de même pas intéressant de pouvoir se plonger dans les défauts de l’analyse empirique du "Capital", afin de faire ressortir les points possibles de divergence avec toute conclusion dramatique quant à la croissance future des inégalités en revenu ou en capitaux. Toute nuance est bonne à apporter, mais la mauvaise foi épique des lèche-bottes du 1% présents dans ce recueil ne conduit pas, au final, à une critique scientifiquement valable, ou même très utile, ce qui est dommage. À lire pour l’article d’Acemoglu et Robinson, qui peut être trouvé en V.O. anglaise ailleurs sur le web…

[Jef Gerets · Rating 2 out of 5]

Een collectie aan (vaak korte) papers over het werk Kapitaal in de 21ste eeuw van Thomas Piketty. Piketty maakt in dat groot werk uiteindelijk 1 grote claim: bij de economische groei is er een klein deel van de bevolking die enorme winsten maakt terwijl de rest niet veel van de winst ziet. De ongelijkheid neemt toe, wat iets slecht is volgens Piketty. Zijn oplossing is dan een bepaalde vermogenstaxatie invoeren op de rijke elite.

Deze collectie gaat op verschillende manieren Piketty tegenspreken. Er is groeiende ongelijkheid maar iedereen, ook de onderste laag, wordt rijker. Sommige van de nummers van Piketty zijn onvolledig of uit hun context getrokken. Een vermogenstaxatie is moeilijk te implementeren en er zijn betere efficiëntere manieren om ongelijkheid te dichten.

Piketty's boek is op dit moment een iconisch boek geworden voor vele linkse economen. Een goede zaak naar mijn mening, maar daarom is het belangrijk dat de kritiek op het boek groeit. Dit was een goed begin, maar Anti-Piketty herhaalt zich vaak (wat te wijten is doordat het een collectie van papers is van verschillende auteurs en dus geen echte samenhang heeft) en hamert dus dezelfde bovengenoemde punten. Mijn economische kennis laat mij ook in de steek (het is nu eenmaal miserabel gelimiteerd) waardoor ik niet altijd kan verifiëren of iets dergelijk steek houdt.

Uiteindelijk wel een boeiend werkje, maar ik zou het niet aanraden.

[Collins Hinga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anyone who has read Piketty's 'Capital in the 21st Century' should spare some few extra dollars and time to read this book as well. As its title connotes, it is a collection of criticisms levelled against Piketty's postulates. I have benefited from reading the two books by having a balanced view of the implications of unfettered wealth and income inequality (Piketty's Work) as well as the unintended ramifications of implementing Piketty's suggestions (Anti-Piketty). Wealth inequality is definitely a major issue in this century and will indeed continue to be seeing as it almost always comes up in every election of most advanced economies. I reckon that no matter which side of the political spectrum you hail from, whether left or right or even in between, one should seek to approach it rationally and not just emotionally and some false sense of allegiance to a particular political divide. Nevertheless, this book does however feel a bit too repetitive seeing as it is essentially a collection of several articles with more or less similar arguments against Piketty's theories. Anyways, don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself and decide.

[Cody Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

TL;DR You should read if you've read Capital in the 21st Century, there's a lot of good counter-arguments made but a lot of typical conservative fluff mixed in (just skip all of part one). Avoid reading if you haven't read Piketty, there's a lot of characterizations that I had a problem with, and a lot of "rebuttals" that I think Piketty would agree with. If you haven't read Piketty yourself then you'll come away with wrong ideas about Piketty's work.

Anti-Piketty: Capital For the 21st Century is a collection of op-eds, blog posts, and papers written in response to Thomas Piketty's Capital: In the 21st Century. It covers a wide range of responses and counter-arguments from over 20 different authors. This gives the book some strength in that multiple perspectives are considered, giving a diverse set of rebuttals. It's also effective in the realm of public debate, give a long list of counter arguments and if the other side can't refute them all, point out the arguments they didn't refute. While the large scope of arguments can be a good thing, it's also a notable drawback of the book.

Because most of the writings are short op-eds or blog posts the arguments don't get fleshed out to convince a skeptical reader of their validity. Many conservative talking points are made without the justification needed to convince a more liberal reader.
There's a constant theme that the rich or "the 1%" create jobs, and make life for everyone better. It's good that Jeff Bezos is rich, he gives us Amazon and creates jobs. There's a similar argument made how the 1% is permeable; just because someone is at the top of wealth today, doesn't mean they'll be their forever. The boom and bust of capitalism means those at the top won't stay there forever.

While these kinds of arguments undoubtedly resonate with a conservative audience, this book does little to convince a more skeptical liberal reader. These points about how the rich are job creators are just stated, and then the author moves on to the next point. This made the first section of the book incredibly difficult to read. It felt like I was reading a Ben Shapiro podcast. Don't you know without billionaires we would all be living miserable lives! I'm open to the idea that things are truly better for everyone with the existence of a "mega rich" class, but this argument needs to fleshed out. This mixed with the consistent snide remarks;
"The delightful thing about Capital in the 21st Century ... is that there's so much to criticize. I'm not a statistician, but I enjoyed trying to follow the leaps of logic."
made the first part of the book unbearable. After reading the first of the three sections I was about to put the book down and dismiss it all as garbage, but section two and three made up for the deficiencies in the first.

The second and third section of the book focus more on the data and conclusions drawn from that data. Part two looks at the statistical methods used by Piketty. The common criticism is that there's nothing outright fraudulent with what Piketty does, but there is a frequent carelessness, and odd methodological choice made that lead to raised eyebrows.

These critiques range from minor tabulation errors, omission of data points that go against Piketty's conclusion, and mixing data sources that shouldn't go together. Part two composes more fleshed out essays and economic papers so the arguments are more detailed and the editorial jabs at Piketty are kept to a minimum or non existent. Most of the authors point out that the things Piketty does, on their own, aren't out of the ordinary. Adding an extra 10% to some data point can be justified, omitting data points that you think are faulty is acceptable, extrapolating data out beyond it's measured range, taking some data points from source A and some data points from source B and putting them on the same graph can be good; but Piketty always does these things in a way that makes his argument of growing inequality stronger and Piketty isn't always upfront about his decisions. As an example;

When doing decennial averages Piketty will use 1920-1929 for the average of 1920's, 1930-39 for the 1930's etc. but then use 1896-1902 for 1900's and then 1904-1910 for the 1910's. While by itself this isn't the end of the world and there maybe a good reason for it, it does cause one to wonder "why do this?" Piketty doesn't provide an explanation so it's hard to know what was the reasoning behind choices like this are. When the authors use a consistent 19?0-19?9 average, they find that the dangers of growing inequality are a little less stark.

Again decisions like this can be justified, and economists will frequently use the same methods Piketty uses, but proper justification needs to be given, and the way Piketty uses these methods always ends up supporting growing inequality. (Also I should note that in reading Capital and Anti-Piketty, I did not check the data myself and independently verify that the data does say what the authors claim. Doing this in Piketty would have made reading the 700 page tome even more of a time sink, and if I took Piketty's word on the data, I should give his critics the same leniency)

The third part looked more at the conclusions and policy prescriptions given by Piketty. Assuming r > g is true, does it follow that this will lead to spiraling inequality? And if there is growing inequality is the correct solution to this higher taxation? The authors, rather obviously, say no. r>g would not necessarily lead to an endless spiral of inequality because the return on capital isn't constant. There is elasticity to the return on capital, as more and more capital is accrued, the value of capital will go down. The market provides a natural check on excess.
The counter-arguments against Piketty's tax proposals start to fall into the same problems that plagued the first section. If we raise taxes on the rich, they won't give us jobs. Again I'm open to an argument about how tax policy effects employment rates, and job growth, but none of the essays here make the argument. They simple state that taxes stop the rich for creating jobs and it's expected for the reader to just accept that.

Overall the book was surprisingly good, with a number of pitfalls. The jabs at Piketty being someone who just hates rich people, the fact that every essay starts with 2-3 paragraphs summarizing Capital, the entirety of part one, made the book real rough at times. But there are absolutely a lot of well reasoned, detailed rebuttals to the claims made by Piketty. Highly recommend reading to anyone, left or right, who's read Capital: In the 21st Century (but for real, skip part one).

[Janina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ce recueil de textes et de chiffres, énoncés d'une façon accessible par d'éminents économistes, historiens, fiscalistes de plusieurs pays, démontre implacablement l'imposture du livre de Thomas Piketty! Ses nombreuses erreurs, ses manipulations de chiffres, ses oublis volontaires ou pas, sont passés au crible et ne laissent aucun doute sur le manque de fiabilité de "Le capital au XXIe Siècle" et le manque d'honnêteté de son auteur.

[Roger Rohweder · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is unfortunate that Capital in the Twenty-First Century wasn't peer reviewed, and then a decision made about whether it should be published (at all, or at least as-is). It has influenced many politicians using very questionable tactics and data. Do yourself a favor, and read the Anti- book after Piketty's, so that you are at least aware of the problems.

[Cullen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read

A must read for anyone who has read Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century. Brings to light many flaws in Picketty’s analysis.

[Dewi Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly good analysis

[Ricky · Rating 3 out of 5]

One overall principal, 900 pages.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting collection of essays further debunking Piketty which is good lacked direction