> This Economist article points out some of the many small academic works that quibble over details with Piketty and Saez. But that's not anything new. The major points of their work, and especially of Piketty's monumental _Capital for the 21st century_ still stand: that capital is a positive feedback loop in a way that labor is not; that mid-20th-century laws that put brakes on this feedback loop have been removed; that a variety of data sources are confirming growing inequality and market capture particularly in the UK and US; and that the only reasonable solution for this is a tax on owned capital (not on income or cap gains) and the political chances of this happening are slim, etc. [emphasis added]

I'm a bit surprised that you included ad hominem accusations of bias and haterism given the adjectives in the first paragraph. :)

But, in seriousness, Piketty's work is pretty poor. The empirical data is now discounted [0], the `r > g` claim was debunked shortly after publication [1]. The fate of the latter claim seems fatal to Piketty's attempts to accurately model the world and prescribe solutions. For instance, capital depreciates as it ages, and can do so dramatically due to obsolescence or damage. Redeploying capital toward new uses is generally quite costly, due to the high inelasticities of capital. Labor is much more elastic to different tasks of production. (I should note that the inelasticity of "human capital" in the modern service-based economy, which is indeed a problem. "Learn to code" is a meme deployed by trolls, but it reflects a real economic reality. The increasing prevalence of human capital and its inelasticities also undercuts Picketty.)

Further, Piketty himself defines capital in such a way (he uses it essentially synonymously with wealth) that his argument is almost tautological, and also fails to account for wealth stored in e.g. real estate (or the works of Picasso, for that matter). Increases in real estate prices (driven almost entirely by well-understood microeconomic structural issues and not by some abstract macro mathematical inequality) account for the amount r exceeds g.

Any usual definition of capital emphasizes that it is a factor of production, not merely wealth. Capital is the fixed "stuff" we use to produce other stuff. It might be a dump truck or an assembly line process or even knowledge of C++. Housing stock almost certainly fails the factor of production test, and thus shouldn't be counted as capital (the status of a Picasso as a factor of production is an exercise left to the reader). (By analogy, labor is also defined as a factor of production, and doesn't include the value of leisure hours or time spent sleeping.) Piketty's book sales might not have been so high had he simply argued that fixed supplies of highly-demanded scarce resources tend to increase over time, and that land in a reurbanizing and NIMBY-ish period is by far the strongest such asset. Henry George said more insightful things about the same subject over a century before Piketty had an economics professorship. (I'm not arguing that George's solutions were great. I'm more enthusiastic about ideas like nuisance-based zoning as opposed to use-based: they seem to achieve the desired effects of stability and low inequality without a ton of extraction. I somehow doubt that Piketty would share this enthusiasm. [2][3])

Ultimately, if these small attacks of death by 1000 cuts on Piketty's work don't convince you (and I would characterize some of the attacks as quite substantial) that it was very flawed and probably just nonsense, then maybe ask yourself if any evidence whatsoever would convince you that Piketty is (broadly speaking) wrong.

[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-histo...

[1] http://mattrognlie.com/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf

[2] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/la...

[3] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/th...