giles

If the work that has been presented by Mr Giles represents the full extent of the problems, then the answer is a definitive no, for three reasons.

Rather, Mr Giles focuses on wealth inequality, to which Mr Piketty turns in Chapter 10 of his book.

Piketty definitely needs to respond thoroughly to the errors that Giles found, and Piketty's response so far is too flippant and superficial.

So it doesn't matter whether Giles is unwitting or not (except perhaps from his own point of view) he is acting as a mouthpiece.

Data fabrication is a serious charge to make, and I am surprised Mr Giles would allege it without clearer proof.

Chris Giles in The Financial Times found his numbers wanting.

I also read the longish Giles Bowkett blog post you're talking about.

(One of Giles Bowkett's posts about this page makes an interesting comparison of the visual layout of Hacker News versus that of the Guardian.

The Giles quote provided by Krugman is illustrative of his agenda -- or his delusion: >>The exact level of European inequality in the last fifty years is impossible to determine, as it depends on the sources one uses.

For the top 10% it is harder to say; here is a chart Mr Giles produces: When you look at the chart, it's the 10% trend (the triangles) which is unaffected, and the 1% trend (the squares) which is muddied.

On most points, Piketty has answered the points in a reasonable (and to me generally persuasive) way.", and [3] Piketty's response to Giles.

Perhaps Chris Giles is motivated by pleasing his "wealthy businessmen" audience.

See [1],"FT journalist accused of serious errors in Thomas Piketty takedown", [2] "Have Giles and the FT gone too far in the attack on Piketty?" (where the answer is "..

Giles Corey - tortured by peine forte et dure to extract a plea of "innocent" or "guilt", but only responded with "More weight".

Note that, as mentioned in the comments there, it's not clear whether FT gave Piketty Giles's specific points to respond to.

Pinyin never took root in local schools and the preexisting romanization systems (Yale, Wade-Giles, etc.) are confusing and contradictory and inconsistently used.

Giles was positively kind in comparison to discussions elsewhere.