J. Galbraith meldet Bedenken an:
"As a matter of the empirical record, the modern inequality data do not show any inexorable tendencies.Inequality fell sharply in the two World Wars. It rose very sharply in many places beginning around 1980 or in some cases a few years before. And that increase largely peaked in 2000, worldwide. The great rise of inequality in recent years was a consequence of the debt crisis, the collapse of communism, of neoliberal globalization. It was not a long-run phenomenon. Piketty projects that it will resume and continue, but it may or may not.Since 2000, declining inequality has been observed in post-neoliberal (but still capitalist) Latin America. There is new evidence of declining inequality in China, and also in Europe after 2008, at least if one takes the continent as a whole. In the US, there has been a sawtooth pattern, closely related to the stock market, with inequality peaks in 2000, 2007 and 2013, but little trend since 2000. If one believes the new PPP values, income inequality has also fallen for the world population taken as a whole, thanks mainly to the rise of average income in China. Further, in some cases, income inequality may fall thanks to an old-fashioned Kuznets transition. This seems to be part of the recent experience in China."
Man kann sich da sicher anschließen: Sicher, Piketty liefert enormes Datenmaterial und hat sich allein schon durch die dokumentarische Arbeit Erfolg verdient. Aber - wie immer - ist die einfache Erklärung, die er anbietet, natürlich etwas zu kurz gegriffen.