From the Financial Times:
‘On empirical grounds it does seem we have another reason for thinking Piketty’s central claim isn’t quite right, at least not for the reasons he sets out, and perhaps not quite right altogether.’
And just some writing perhaps worth revisiting.
Old news I know, but it seems that the Yale Press was genuinely afraid that publishing this book could potentially lead to violence, and that they would be responsible for the consequences of such potential violence:
On empirical grounds it does seem we have another reason for thinking Piketty’s central claim isn’t quite right, at least not for the reasons he sets out, and perhaps not quite right altogether. – See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/what-do-the-piketty-data-problems-really-mean.html#sthash.BiBxH7Oq.dpuf
Christopher Hitchens’ post here suggesting this was an act of institutionalized cowardice and a nod to the thuggish demands of those who need to be stood up against. He did have a first-hand look at Salman Rushdie’s ordeal, and the responses to it from those in the West.
“…Yale had consulted a range of experts before making its decision and that “[a]ll confirmed that the republication of the cartoons by the Yale University Press ran a serious risk of instigating violence.”