The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

In my word those who claim the existence of something, no matter if UFOs, Yetis, aliens or whatever, have the burden of proof, not those who claim they do not exist. For a simple reason: One cannot prove the non-existence.

Maybe it is possible. Maybe not. Depends on the summary information. It may be helpful, it may be informational garbage. Depends on the particular summary.

Even if I have, at some time in the past, said that I have not read the book (which is not clear, because you have not given a quote) - how does it follow that I have not read the book now?

So what? Anyway scientific papers would be useful to show you how reasonable argumentation looks like.

Some books may be balanced. Do tax declarations have to be balanced? Looks like you live in a totalitarian survival state, where everything is recorded. Ok, the NSA may have recorded almost everything they can record. But, sorry, there is real life, and there are things recorded in a way that the IRS learns about them. And even in the homeland of bureaucracy, Germany, there is a very large difference between these two. And not everything has to be declared. There are lots of things you can declare but are not obliged too (usually the things which allow you to reduce taxes) and other things you simply don't have to declare.

About the time Piketty is expected to find out some particular owners of particular properties:

Once he does not spend time to get the information, he does not have it. So, all the nice claims that some sort of information is, in principle, available, is irrelevant, once your beloved researchers, probably, do not use this information anyway.

Ok, maybe with the budget of the NSA one can, from the information that the NSA has, extract some reasonable information about the real wealth distribution. Unfortunately, the NSA has their budget to find out other things.

If some estimate is reasonable depends on many very different questions. Usually scientists are able to get some reasonable estimates. And I have no doubt that income tax data are interesting data and may allow, in various situations, reasonable estimates. What they do not allow is to make reasonable estimates about the changes if the income tax changes. At least not without a lot of additional information. Because the change of the income tax changes also income tax declarations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So in your world, the existence of published statistics by the IRS, Census Bureau, SEC, company financial reports, property tax assessors, market and real estate analysts, import/export firms and their regulatory agencies, and so forth, is equivalent to the existence of UFOs or Yetis - only a rumor, not something compiled in books named for you, the publications of agencies named for you, the everyday experience of the people you are talking to, a few quick links on the internet such as the one I provided in 1758, etc.

That's because you have a strong and vested interest in not seeing certain aspects of the real world.

You had no problem accepting the fact of such estimates of the Northern and Southern US economies in 1860 - you built an entire argument based on them (and it was your argument that was idiotic, not the facts it was based on).

It doesn't - I mentioned that myself, twice now. It's just that you still don't know what's in it, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you still haven't read it. I have always agreed that it's possible you could have read it and not known what was in it anyway.

Of course not. The arithmetic has to be correct, is all.

This is true.

By whom?

This is true.

That's why books and publications like Piketty's (or Braudel's, etc) are valuable, and people like me pay money for them - they're a hell of a lot of work.

And without the information in such works, the nature and trends of the US economy - or any aspect of the Western economic landscape - are almost impossible to get a hold on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is not the question what I believe. The question is who has the burden of proof. Note also that your claim, which I ask you to prove, is not the existence of published statistics by the IRS, Census Bureau, SEC, company financial reports, property tax assessors, market and real estate analysts, import/export firms and their regulatory agencies, and so forth. It is if these published things contain sufficiently good information, information sufficient for a very particular question: To find out how the wealth distribution is, or how it has been changed. And this, moreover, in a sufficiently easy way affordable for small groups of scientists.

And, again, it is not relevant at all what I think about the existence of such, let's name them good quality, sources (an oversimplification, because sources may very high quality for some purposes and useless for others). The only point is that you claim their existence, so you have the burden of proof.

The point being? If I, say, argue with a Christian fundamentalist, I can start whole arguments completely based on The Holy Bible. Say, to derive some contradictions, or some consequences he would not like. Then, again, one source may be completely sufficient for question 1 but much too inaccurate or even misleading for question 2. My criticism is not a fundamentalist one, that the income tax declarations tell us nothing. Not at all. My point was that for a particular question - how wealth distribution changes if the income tax changes - this source is quite unreliable.

To prove this, you would have 1.) to quote something from me which shows this, 2.) with link, 3.) to quote Piketty, to prove that my claim is wrong, 4.) with reference, of course. Without this, this is yet another unbased defamation.

???? If the sources you give are relevant for the question discussed, Piketty should be able to extract, in sufficiently short time, interesting information about the wealth distribution of the whole nation.

And the question what is that mystical additional information, which allows to close the big loophole that what is declared as income changes if the tax changes, remains your secret. You have invented a lot of claims about what information is public, some IRS summaries, and a lot more. But I have missed yet any particular additional information which would allow to close this loophole, and has been used by Piketty.

Of course, I do not spend money for mainstream economists, I restrict myself to what the internet gives away for free. Some of Piketty's books I have found for free, so, this is not an admission that I have not read him ;-)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question is what it would take to get you to look at what you have been pointed toward, linked to, etc. Because I'm not going to put a lot of work into any such waste of time project.

Yes, it is. That's my claim.

And as you yourself had no problem accepting in the case of the US Civil War, that has been demonstrated by the accomplishment of the task. By dozens of people.

You were the "fundamentalist" in that argument - I was responding on your terms.

Well then you agree with me. Argument over.

Which he and dozens of others have done.

So you haven't read my posts either - the ones with the lists of examples, the link to the kinds of property tax data available routinely, etc. Or maybe you have:

And provided you with links, names, and sources. But never mind: Conflicting evidence being merely some invented claims you have no interest in, your presuppositions about this stuff you know nothing about will remain unchallenged.

 

Reasonable arguments.

About a different question.

Hm. That they have extracted income tax records is known. That this gives some (but very rough) information about wealth distribution, ok. But far from accurate one. That it is unreliable for the question if and how income tax changes change the wealth distribution you have agreed. What remains?

Some self-praise about what you have done, as usual without any link where you have done it, so you may as well have invented it completely, or exaggerated what you really have done. Recommendation: Leave it to others to praise you.

 

I freely admit that I am incapable of arguing you into looking at evidence, reviewing facts, reading books, or even clicking on links. Nor will I attempt to do so.

Nossir. Exactly the same question - whether economists are capable of making reasonable estimates of the wealth distribution in a modern industrial capitalistic society. You took their estimates for granted. They were made without any income tax records at all.

And property tax records, and import/export records, and corporation financial reporting, and SEC or equivalent agency documents, and all the other records I have mentioned plus many more.

The immediate question was whether changes in wealth distribution over time can be realistically and informatively estimated by economists. Because if they can, the question of what happens to them in the wake of income tax changes is a matter of record. And on the basis of that record, income tax rate increases on high incomes do act to slow and curb disproportionate wealth accumulation in the upper classes. This is also supported by game theory and economic theory generally.

So we can say, informatively, that wealth and income inequality are both growing in the US, and have become very high - to the point that the efficiency and productivity of the entire economy is reduced, as well as the prosperity of those in the lower classes.

 

There is no need. That you have fantasies that I don't look at evidence is your problem, not my. That you see a necessity to repeat such fantasies without providing evidence as personal attacks is, of course, not only your problem (you discredit yourself), but also a problem of the readers. But this is something one has, probably, to live with.

If you think that the context was really exactly the same, please quote. As long as you don't, this is simply your memory. Anyway, it is quite irrelevant. Because taking something for granted in a discussion means nothing. It does, in particular, not mean that one thinks this is true or well established. It only means that, even if it would be questionable, it would be off-topic to question it.

Yes, you have "mentioned" a lot of things. If Piketty has used them, and how, is known by those who have read the book and cared about the question which of these things he has used. Here, in the forum, it is unknown, given that you have not supported your claims by any quotes. My impression was that his main source is income tax records, and everything else is secondary. Feel free to show that this impression is wrong, by some quotes. Should be easy if you are right.

What if the answer is that some changes can be realistically estimated, others not?

For example, during a time where income tax has not been changed, there may happen a lot of things which change the wealth distribution. And there is not much reason to think that these changes cannot be reasonably estimated by the corresponding changes in the income tax paid. If such changes can be estimated reasonably does not mean that changes caused by income tax changes with be accurately described. Then, if the income tax is low, one can reasonably think that the corresponding records give a much better base for wealth estimates.

To find out which data are how reliable for which question is always, in all sciences, an extremely difficult one, and your simple "everything is fine" ideology is not helpful to answer these questions.

You can say this. I have not seen sufficient evidence yet. And the discussion with you was in no way helpful in this regard. Essentially you have given only a name, Piketty. I have tried hard to extract some more information from you, but you refuse. I guess because you do not have the information too.

 

You didn't take them for granted in the discussion. You took them for granted in order to introduce them into the discussion, as evidence for your argument - you introduced the patterns of wealth distribution in the US, as facts I was bound to respect, in support of your claims.

Now you are telling me that what you took for granted was possible in analyzing the 1860 US economy from more than a century later, is not possible in analyzing the US economy now.

I'm not arguing from Piketty's book, or any other single authority. I merely suggested it to you, as a one place source for a lot of the information you lack, such as how professionals go about making estimates of the distribution of wealth in a given society. Your lack of information is profound, and cannot be alleviated by a couple of quotes, even if I were inclined to do the hours of work necessary to properly quote-mine a substantial and thickly informative text.

If you don't care whether or not your posts are informed, why should anyone else?

 

If you think, this is somehow important, quote it, with a link.

I do not say it is not possible. I say that the evidence you have provided is not sufficient to support your claims.

Fine. If you are no longer arguing from Piketty, you argue from nothing. Because you have not provided anything else yet.

And in this sense it was very helpful, because it has shown me that the income tax declarations are the best information they have and use.

Oh, poor iceaura, you need hours of work to find even a single quote in the Piketty book which supports your point? Looks more like even years of work would not be sufficient to find them because they do not exist.

My lack of information is your polemical fantasy, you have been unable to support it. Instead, your complete lack of quotes, your removal of the links which are automatically created by the reply function, and now your cheap polemical excuse for not providing any quotes strongly suggest that you have nothing to quote.

I remember that in the discussions of the past you have provided quotes. Some of them were very interesting, and have improved my knowledge about the Civil War. Some of them have hit back, like that paper about child labor, where I have found inside support for my main points. Looks like you have learned from this, and have decided that it is too dangerous to quote.

 

Still haven't read the book, we see. Or looked at any of the other sources named for you, or clicked on any of the links provided, or really done anything at all except repeat that you have seen nothing that conflicts with your assumptions.

Yep. So not only have you not read the book, you have forgotten what my point was in recommending it to you.

No, you didn't. You have now repeated that claim so often you have forgotten it was rebutted immediately the first time. The problem was that you didn't read the paper, just as you haven't read the Piketty book. You misinterpreted part of the abstract, just as you misinterpreted something you found in the introductory pages of the Piketty book. You then made mistaken "common sense" assumptions about what was in the paper, just as you have made mistaken "common sense" assumptions about Piketty's book, became confused about the topic as you have become confused about what you are attempting to argue here, and ended up longwindedly refusing to comprehend what the key concepts such as "stable equilibrium" meant for the child labor findings just as you have longwindedly refused to comprehend what the existence of all this public data and compiled summaries and so forth means for the thousands of various kinds of analysts who are routinely

- routinely, with money on the line,

tracking various kinds of wealth distribution in the US.

This is a pattern.

Meanwhile, it is possible to informatively estimate wealth (and income) distribution in the US for any given year. That is where the observation that inequality in wealth (and income) distribution is growing in the US, to the point that we expected to be experiencing the observed effects normally correlated with high levels of wealth (and income) inequality - they are not a surprise - comes from.

Among those effects are political ones, and the Trump phenomenon is almost comically stereotypical of them: if you reduce your economy to the patterns of a banana republic, you can expect banana republic politics (and vice versa, probably).

 

Still a defamation, given that you do not support this claim by any evidence.

If you think so, repeat your point.

Thanks for providing an opportunity to check your claims and to prove you a liar. Here is my answer about the child labor paper:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/indianas-freedom-to-discriminate-law.145520/page-18#post-3308652
It contains a lot of quotes, every quote with an indication from which page of the paper it was taken. Not guesses about the content, but quotes with page numbers.

But, I see, this was not your link - you have only offered http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/the_economics_o_1.html where the article was linked - but hidden behind a paywall. Here is where I have quoted the content of your link:

And, in this case too, I have quoted - not guessed - even if at that time I had not yet access to the paper itself. So, the problem was not that I didn't read the paper, but that you, initially, have provided only a link to a version behind a paywall. Intentionally, to be able to claim that "you didn't read the paper"? I don't know.

 

That's you reading a moderator's link provision, under threat, many posts after you had engaged in exactly the pattern of discussion you are exhibiting right now with me.

Or as noted:

We have not yet reached the part of the discussion in which you go back through one of the several links from one of the several earlier posts and misrepresent what you find.

You are perfectly capable of eventually bringing your presumptions to bear on the distortion of actual articles, as you demonstrated, and then ignoring the immediate rebuttals as you have to this day on that one. But that does not erase the pages of posting that come before you get to that phase, in which we are at the moment in this thread immured.

What it does is prepare us for it, which is you ignoring the argument and the reasoning behind whatever link you were provided back far enough to make memory adjustable, and essentially changing the subject (as when you found the child labor researcher Basu explicitly addressing your concerns as legitimate, my exact reason for choosing that researcher, and used that to claim support for your argument about child labor - which his research had largely refuted).

And in the process muddling to the point of no recovery the matter at issue in the thread, and the original argument. That thread was not about child labor, nor was my argument. This one is not about Piketty's use of income tax information, nor is my argument.

And having learned my lesson, there and elsewhere, I am doing no work for you, as I did in that thread finding a compatible researcher (home page even, dozens of links) and article for you, and Bells did in making the trackdown for you on one particular article, over a subsidiary point related to a major thread topic.

The rapid growth of wealth and income inequality in the US is something we can now assume in this thread, in other words. It's been solidly estimated with good evidence, it's established fact. So is the ability of the US government, in theory, to reset tax rates to the levels they were at before the current growth in inequality began.

 

Threat, lol. The "threat" to be moderated is, first of all, nothing I would care of, second, was completely unjustified, as I have made clear in my response. After this, I was given the link which you have given only hidden behind the paywall.

Some of the usual unbased attacks disposed. There is, of course, no point of repeating that old discussion. The fact remains that your claim - that I have not read the paper in question - was proven false by explicit quoted from the article inclusive references to the pages of the article. This is the interesting point here. You are a proven liar, defamer. Here, to remember the lie: "The problem was that you didn't read the paper". Despite the fact that you have seen my answer - you have answered it, quoting me.

It is work for you, to support your claims with evidence. But, ok, so I have learned now that you have decided not to make valid arguments at all, but to restrict yourself to unbased attacks.

I have hoped that you will somehow return to the more reasonable behavior of the past. Ok, you have decided to stop any reasonable discussion. I have to accept this. Nobody can be forced to participate in a discussion in a reasonable way.

But, given that you have decided to stop any reasonable argumentation, it makes no sense to discuss anything with you in future. The particular lie above is something I would be ready to forgive, maybe it was not intentional but you have simply forgotten that. But the clear intention not to use any reasonable arguments in future ...

 

Here's my initial recommendation of Piketty's book, in fully quoted context:

Now read the litany of posts you have typed in response, not a single one of which even mentions the body of Piketty's notes or references. Which were just a recommended start, examples from the various partial and off the cuff lists I have posted of what kinds of information are available to those estimating wealth distribution in large industrial economies. Just a beginning. For your information. But you deny even the existence of this information, let alone the arguments possible from it. Piketty and everyone like him is in your estimation a naif, a fool who takes income tax declarations at face value as complete and wholly reliable depictions of rich people's economic dealings. You know that without reading him, just as you knew that the child labor researchers had made this or that error without reading them.

All in support of what appears to be a desire to deny that patterns of wealth distribution in the Western industrial economies can be discovered, established by research, recorded as knowledge, and used to inform governmental actions such as tax policy. Which is an odd hill to defend at all costs;

until one realizes that to the extent we do have reliable knowledge US wealth distribution, we have contradiction of Austrian economic theory, and support for the efficacy of competent governmental taxation and regulation. One must choose. And then it all makes sense.

 

The burden of proof is on your side. You claim existence of something, and somehow think I have to search the evidence for you. And until I have found some, you can attack me "you know nothing", "you have not read".

The logic of scientific argumentation works in the other direction. You make an existence claim, so prove it.

So, this is how you imagine things work. I have to read the Holy Scripts of Keynesian economists who try to extract from a horrible amount of data something useful. And then I have to "realize" that the results are "reliable" and become a believer.

By the way, the point of Austrian economics is not that one cannot obtain some plausible estimates, but that they are not reliable, because of the complexity of human society. How can one check this? Only by considering particular examples.

One very important source, if one wants to get some information about the income distribution, are, of course, income tax declarations. Have we seen that they have weak points? Yes, we have seen. But the income tax declarations are exceptional. They are the point where individuals are obliged to sum up all their income - because the progressive tax depends on the sum. There are, of course, a lot of other data, but the problem with at least most of the other data are that they are even more problematic, because they do not sum up all the wealth owned by a single person. Once a tax is proportional, it is easier for the government to tax where the the taxed object is. One controls that for every piece of land property tax is paid, that in every shop the shop-owner pays sales tax and so on. This may become different in a future Big Brother state, without cash, where every payment is open to the Big Brother and his economists so that they have no problem to find out how many Ferraris have been bought by white Anglo-Saxon males. But we are not yet in your ideal society.

Up to now, the income tax is what gives the most accurate data about the wealth distribution. To prove that this is false is simple for you: Provide a particular example of better data. But this is what you refuse to do.

 

I claim the existence of many kinds of many somethings useful for estimating wealth distribution in a modern Western society, have listed several for you, have linked you to examples (such as a single website that provides decades of record of the parcel boundaries, property tax payments, zoning, ownership, sale price, and infrastructural features of the entire residential landscape of my State), and pointed you to at least one source that not only lists many others (in its notes and references) but demonstrates how they might be employed by a serious party. So your search has been simplified.

No. You have to adjust your theory to avoid contradiction by physical event, is all. How you manage that is your business.

So as I pointed out, to the extent that one can obtain reliability in one's estimates of a certain kind, for a certain purpose, your version of Austrian theory is in need of adjustment.

That's been routinely possible for decades, in the US. The State would need a warrant for the sales records of the actual purchase, if it wanted to eliminate the last bit of doubt about the actual transaction.

You wouldn't even need the State. Big Brother is incorporated, in the US. He's a private, capitalist, free market entity - that info is for sale. Would you like find out what colors such males preferred, in contrast to women, men of other races, etc? How far away they lived, from the dealership?

You continue to confuse wealth and income. US income tax data is very useful in estimating wealth, especially aggregate by economic class (so the individual gains and losses are averaged out), possibly in modern times the single most useful body of data, but it is not sufficient on its own. Low income and great wealth are often associated in old age, for example, in the US, as are high income and lesser (or even negative) wealth in youth.

And it is not necessary, as you demonstrated when arguing for certain causes of the American Civil War based on the wealth distribution patterns in the US.

So we see that the Austrians have a point - there are significant sources of uncertainty and potential error, great need of humility and conscientiousness, in such matters. But that's the job.

And when the job is done reasonably well, and corrected by criticism, and redone as necessary, and so forth, the trends visible in its product are informative - one of them being that the US has been trending toward banana republic income and wealth distribution, making its current political scene perhaps a bit more explicable.

 

Fine. You completely ignore that I do not have to do any search to justify your points. I can tell you that there is the Library of Congress, and it contains all the information you need to find out that you are wrong, deadly wrong in all of your claims.

Yes, you have "pointed out". Ok, I "point out" that you are wrong.

Of course, for money you will get all the information you want. Ask your fortuneteller, he will tell you even about your future.

This is what I said: "what gives the most accurate data about the wealth distribution". It may be, again, a language issue. I thought "about" is sufficiently vague to make it clear that it does not give us the wealth distribution itself, but something useful to estimate it.

In some cases it is not necessary, in other cases one needs more accurate data. For Kepler, the information one could get by looking at the stars was sufficient. Today looking at the stars gives zero useful information to astronomers. So, if the available data are sufficient to decide a particular question has to be decided separately for every question.

And the job is done badly. I'm not an Austrian in these questions, and think it is wrong to reject all this econometrics business completely. But, given the problems, I think they are almost useless. They may look informative, but the probability is too large that this "information" appears to be disinformation.

Some general ideas, like "the US has been trending toward banana republic", are nothing I would object.

 

But I never denied there was Library of Congress, with much information of many kinds in it. You didn't even know that lots of people keep track of who buys Ferraris, that comprehensive property tax and ownership information is a click away, or that a book supposedly right in front of you has listed in its notes and references many sources of information besides income tax returns and entire chapters resting on analysis of them.

And it has been, for the questions here. You just don't like the decision, so you have decided to doubt it without looking at the information it is based on, or gathering information of your own.

It's an argument, a simple syllogism. Here it is again, bracketing the side reference to the fact that it's been made three times now, and you still haven't dealt with it:

And that necessity of adjustment, that conflict with theory, is my nomination for the motivation behind the intransigence with which you maintain - posting one mistake after another, without discouragement, page after page of uninformed assumptions going haywire without having the slightest effect on your reasoning or conclusions - that no one can estimate the patterns of wealth and income distribution in modern industrial societies reliably enough to analyze large scale changes in them over time.

They can. They have. And the news for the US economy is alarming.

 

I have also never denied that there are the many other sources of information you have named. I have some doubt that these sources contain much better information about wealth distribution than the income tax data. Which one can argue about if one considers a particular example of such information. Once you have not given other examples, at least not in a specific enough way, there is nothing to argue about.

I do not have to care about this. You have to present information how to make conclusions from data available about Ferrari buyers, or from your one click away ownership information, or from the content of the book which you claim contains some interesting chapters.

As far with negative result. The only source of information was income tax declaration data, which have been criticized because of their dependence on the actual size of the income tax - which shows that they may be misleading if one wants to find out how changing income tax influences the wealth distribution. About everything else we have only heard that some data exist somewhere. Fine but irrelevant.

There is no problem if I like the thesis that increasing the income tax leads to a more equal distribution of wealth. May be, may be not. Nothing which would be important for me or my political ideas depends on this.

It is the other way. I have taken a look at what the information is based on, and was surprised to see that it was mainly based on income tax data. The result was a LOL from my side. It was a nice example for me how some people lie with statistics. I have given you a fair chance to show that I have made an error, by showing me that using other, less problematic sources of information lead to the same result, and have received nothing.

Except that I have no theory about wealth distribution which would be contradicted if income tax increase would really lead to a more equal distribution of wealth. Instead of developing fantasies about my motivations, you would better study the Piketty book to find a quote which supports your claim, I think.

You think your "you don't know anything" cries and similar name-calling should have any effect on my reasoning or conclusions? If you would post real arguments, supported by quotes to research or so from those who are able to estimate the pattern, reliably enough, this would be different.

Just to illustrate how I think a scientific discussion should look like. Here are some quotes why I think that the main source of data for Piketty are income tax data:

No doubt, Piketty uses other data too. As any reasonable researcher would, and I have not made any suggestions that he is not. But the income tax data are his main source.

The other one is an argument about why I think other data give less information. Income tax, if progressive, requires that all the income is summed up. The sum is necessary to compute the income tax, therefore there will be information about the sum wherever we have a progressive income tax. For other data, there is not necessarily such a sum. If one owns land in different communes, would there be any place where the land tax would be summed up? If not, how such a distributed land owner would be identified as the superrich one he is? This does not mean that you cannot use them, but that they will be much more indirect, implicit information.

 

Nobody said they did. What they contain is more and different information - which makes the estimate better and more reliable, covers some gaps and flaws in relying on income tax alone, etc.

Look: You claimed some future Big Brother totalitarian State would be necessary to discover stuff that any car sales manager is getting monthly updates on in his inbox. That's your level of information here. Why not quit posting on matters you don't know anything about, and don't care about?

You didn't look at it, obviously.

You were in error to conclude such naive use of data from your brief skim of a few pages, you did not - as I recommended - attend to the notes and references,

and you are now forgetting that you were not "surprised" at all, at the time, but explicitly expecting exactly what your presumptions led you to find.

In the first place, identifying a particular superrich guy as owner of a particular five million dollar house is unnecessary for estimating wealth and income distribution. You are obsessed with tracking these guys, and there are reasons one would want to (and means by which one can), but usefully estimating wealth and income distribution is not one of them.

In the second: Yes, there are places where land taxes are summed up - at the county, city, State, and finally Federal levels. Even before computer files, this was routine - it's how inheritance laws were enforced, for example (such court proceedings have always been rich sources of economic data, still are). Now it's automatic - software, spreadsheets, full time professionals devoting entire careers to the smallest details of such efforts, etc. You may have heard of Prince's recent death - that will be a small aspect of the large task of assessing his wealth. In fact, that part is apparently over - my newspaper listed his real estate holdings within a couple of days of his death.

Why don't you know that? I linked you to a primary source website, for chrissake.

If you read your quotes, you will discover that he is primarily using not simple income tax data but a carefully compiled and multiply sourced/analyzed etc database of World Incomes ;

for which income tax data was one - very significant but not isolated or unadjusted - source. Note (for example) that he mentions "tax forms", not "income tax forms", at one point.

Even more central to this discussion, note what he is using that Database and several similar sources for directly: estimates of income inequality.

Not wealth distribution. He hasn't got there yet. Income inequality.

And his use of them is in coordination with, and corrected by, those other sources. He is not naive in the matter. He doesn't even take income tax data as a straight reference for income inequality, let alone wealth distribution.

There is no "less" or "more" involved. The other data improve all the information including the income tax stuff, and vice versa.

He uses Jane Austen novels, for example, to illustrate a couple of points and back some observations. Those observations improve the information used for wealth estimations, including the information available from the income tax forms.

And you in the real world accept this without qualm - you have no objection to the observation that the US is trending toward "banana republic economics", say: that's all Piketty is talking about, only argued from evidence and placed in context and with a specific notion of what that term means.