1; He does not consider the most critical facts, and it lacks historical evidence and contradicts reality.  Its claims appeal to ignorant people with little idea of economic history and financial concepts.  I am not surprised that the presenter relies on such a reference because most of what she says she can’t justify with e

1  Evidence; Started with Kuznet’s US systematic study of tax records that revealed how income inequality evolved from 1913 to 1948, using that method, extended it to France, publishing results in 2001, then proceeded with other academics to further develop the research to an additional 20 countries, adding another two volumes from 2007-2010.

The next area was wealth and inheritance, which has accurate records dating much further back to the past due to the legal consequences of inheritance and potential tax liabilities—lastly, the total stock of national wealth and how that wealth is distributed. Dating back to 1700. (Piketty 2017f)

The book’s goal is to educate so we are no longer ignorant; he and his team have taken years to find thousands of financial documents to analyse and then come to some conclusions based on the statistics produced. With all calculations available in the notes section or referring to the more statistical-based papers, links to online pages. (Piketty 2017c)

The conjuncture in this case, to dismiss an expert with an opinion, that if Piketty and Mariana Mazzucato have found irrefutable evidence, then better to dismiss them as experts in the area of dispute than engage, then the argument is won on the basis of an opinion. Still, it’s not, as Socrates and Plato would demand, you need a deductive and epistemological argument to engage in debate, otherwise, it’s not a debate of any value.