This potentially resonates with me. Blue light is a problem for me and most others I work with, but we can't use f.lux due to the color alterations (graphic designer). Are your lenses completely clear?
I quoted Wikipedia as it appears you have not read the book: you must of course read all the citations for the paragraph.
Had you been interested in actually considering the validity
of the sentence I quoted, as opposed to nitpicking, you would have found that the 2nd citation refers you to http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 where you can find a table of contents[0]. Chapter 15 - "A Global Tax on Capital" stands out.
Your ad hominem claim is ironic.
You posit that it is "unambiguous that the FT editor [holds an agenda]".
You further posit that the WSJ is biased.
Yet when Piketty "writes a column in the left-wing daily Libération and served as a top economic adviser to the Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal in the 2007 election[1]" you are not convinced that he holds an agenda.
Either you too are guilty of ad hominem, "specifically "guilt by association"", or you are logically incoherent, subscribing to double standards.
Your political prothezlysing - and downvoting - is not conducive to the discussion. Again, I exhort you to read up on Piketty and reconsider your position.
"He proposes a global tax on wealth to help address the problem of inequality today"[0]
"Mr. Piketty is a well-known public intellectual in France. He writes a column in the left-wing daily Libération and served as a top economic adviser to the Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal in the 2007 election"[1]
I exhort you to read up on Piketty and reconsider your position.
This does not lend credibility to whatever argument it is that you are trying to make.
>>I read the FT article when it appeared. What seemed remarkable was that, even though it took Piketty years to compile and work with the data, it took the FT editor weeks to come up with a rebuttal [1]. That by itself should tell you something.
This is an absurd and daft point. It is obvious that the process of compiling data and producing a book presents a more time-consuming task than working with the same data, already compiled, in order to complete not a book, but a newspaper article.
As a corollary to your statement it is further worth noting that The Economist also bring up scholarly defense of Piketty's data:
"Scott Winship, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute who disputes Mr Piketty's overarching narrative about inequality wrote on Twitter last night: I’ve spent time with Piketty U.S. wealth ineq[uality] spreadsheet and LOTS of time with his income data. He's not up to funny business."
As made apparent, your passive-aggressive political proselytizing does not offer a constructive contribution to this submission. Please understand this.
"[146] I find on a balance of probabilities that the growing by the defendants in 1998 of canola on nine fields, from seed saved in 1997 which was known or ought to have been known by them to be Roundup tolerant, and the harvesting and sale of that canola crop, infringed upon the plaintiffs' exclusive rights under Canadian patent number 1, 313, 830 in particular claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 45 of the patent"