Scott Alexander summarizes and analyzes various critiques of Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century', finding that many of Piketty's key claims don't hold up well under scrutiny. Longer summary

This post summarizes various critiques and discussions of Thomas Piketty's book 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'. Key points include: Matt Rognlie's criticism that Piketty didn't correctly account for capital depreciation, and that recent capital-share growth comes primarily from housing. The post questions Piketty's claim about higher returns for the super-rich, with various commenters providing insights on investment strategies and market behavior. It also discusses critiques of Piketty's income distribution statistics and data interpretation. The post concludes that many of Piketty's main claims, such as the rising rentier class and much better returns for the super-rich, don't hold up well under scrutiny, though some of his rules of thumb for growth are more robust than expected. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century', finding its analysis of long-term economic trends and inequality compelling but pessimistic about proposed solutions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century', a book on inequality and macroeconomic history. The review covers Piketty's key arguments about economic growth, the rise and fall of rentiers, and increasing inequality. Scott finds Piketty's data and analysis compelling, particularly the idea that normal economic growth is always 1-1.5% per year and that the rate of return on capital tends to exceed economic growth, leading to increasing inequality over time. The review discusses potential solutions like wealth taxes, but is pessimistic about their implementation. It ends on some cautiously optimistic notes about global inequality reduction and the scientific nature of Piketty's approach. Shorter summary