The Inequality Hoax (Encounter Broadsides)

A good introduction to the arguments against the idea that we are living in a horrid time where the rich have everything and everyone else is living in squalid sewage. While the rich have gotten richer, the poor and the middle classes have gotten richer too, just not as quickly. My life, as an American, is literally more comfortable and easier and better in just my short life from the 1980s to the 2010s. Those scholars, pundits, and demagogues who focus only on the growth of assets for the top 1 or 10 percent in that time are focusing on the wrong thing. The book serves as an appetizer for arguments against Thomas Pinketty's error-ridden and misguided <i>Capital in the Twenty-First Century</i>. A good start and some leads for further readings (though a dedicated "Suggested Readings" section would have been nice).

Put this at the top of your "Piketty Reviews" list, if as I do you find the reviews (good and bad, "Chicago" or "Austrian", or anywhere else on the politico-economic spectrum) much more informative - and for the most part more readable- than "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" it self. Pierson thoughtfully points out flaws in Piketty's selections of data from the recent and more distant past, and presents similarities and differences between Piketty and famous economists of history- and he does it in 46 clearly written and easily comprehended pages. In my biased assessment, this is exceeded in value only by Deidre McCloskey's review of the same book, which is more erudite and scholarly and hence (for some) a bit less digestible. As the title suggests, the author is not sympathetic with the current "Income Inequality" political meme/fad that promises to be in the forefront of the upcoming 2016 US election, so be warned! Many other reviews of "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" blithely accept that it "proves" Income Inequality as a real and appropriate target for political rhetoric and action. Pierson demurs - convincingly!

Doesn't go into depth on the problems - gaming of - the data that are used by people pushing the inequality hoax. For example, using pre-tax and pre-transfer income data. All the kind of garbage that Picketty and his ilk do to prove their anti-market economy bias

Good argument. Recommended Reading

This is mostly a book review of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty–First Century.Ho hum.

A good quick read. Better the second time around.

I saw a review with "Ho hum" as the label and I couldn't say it better myself (so I didn't try). I have already written a large review of Piketty's Capital both praising and questioning its content. This pamphlet, while its thesis is on par, is in no way an in depth explanation. If you have no idea what could be wrong with professor Piketty's book then glancing at this might be a start (takes maybe 20 or 30 minutes to read). The focus the author is trying to convey regards wealth-creation...basically that income inequality (of capital and labor) can be static or accelerating but the lives of all market participants can improve simultaneously as savings turns to investment and productivity increases. He also points out that secondary market fluctuations appear to be highly correlated with movements in upper-class share of income...implying that this is more of a paper increase in capital/income ratios and not a structural one (if all tried to divest and recognize that capital at once then the wealth would appear vastly non-existent). Perhaps worth the short read but not for anyone who already understands relative vs. absolute wealth.