The IGM forum asked its panel of leading economists to agree or disagree with
The most powerful force pushing towards greater wealth inequality in the US since the 1970s is the gap between the after-tax return on capital and the economic growth rate.
Actually, one economist agreed with the statement, newly-added panelist Hilary Hoynes. Let me know if you can find another panelist with a less impressive resume or a narrower body of work.
Six economists, including Raj Chetty, answered “uncertain.” Seven economists strongly disagree. The remaining twenty economists who gave an answer (including Emanuel Saez!) checked “disagree.”
UPDATE: Brad DeLong speculates that Piketty himself would have answered “disagree” to the poll. (Pointer from Mark Thoma). Brad thinks that the IGM forum should have asked a different question, but he does not say what that question should be. Let me suggest this, and I hope this would make Brad happy: Going forward, the most powerful force pushing towards greater wealth inequality in the U.S. will be the gap, etc.
That Saez disagreed with the question should have given and indication that the question was flawed as a representation of Piketty’s views. “Income and savings inequality increases are now fueling US wealth inequality. Down the road r-g will be central as predicted by Piketty” – it’s not clear if you read the book, but there is no way Saez could be described as disagreeing with Piketty.
What’s the purpose of insulting Hilary Hoynes? Sounds like you know little to nothing about him/her.
In view of the fact that Piketty’s defenders say that he would have said “disagree” with the question as asked, I stand by my disparagement of Hoynes’ answer. I will grant that I could have made it less ad hominem.
Sometimes one jumps to a conclusion that subsequently gets simply indefensible. And I think that happened here.
First, it is simply not the case that “Brad DeLong speculates that Piketty himself would have answered “disagree” to the poll.” What he does is provide a quote by Piketty directly contradicting the content of what was suggested to the panel to be a Piketty position. This is rather different than “speculating.”
Second, yes, Piketty himself has now stated that he disagrees with the statement provided to the panel. Weissmann asked him, the most relevant part being, I guess “So this indeed has little to do with r>g” (Piketty!), see last paragraph here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/10/15/piketty_igm_forum_economists_did_not_just_reject_capital_in_the_21st_century.html
So, we have a) a quote by Piketty from before the panel session contradicting the panel question; and b) Piketty himself disagreeing with the panel question. The title suggestion that “No Economic Experts Agree with Piketty” is supported by nothing, at all – they were responding to a misinformation.
How ist it possible to not think, at this point, that the one who formulated this alleged Piketty position got it wrong, rather than your title conclusion? I’d also point out that you not only insulted Hoynes, but did so in a post in which you did not manage to get it right yourself.