I've always been a bit embarrassed for the economics profession; it's always seemed to me that it could be where math meets sociology and psychology, but is instead where politics meets unfounded conjecture.
Piketty changed that for me. He does true science here. I read it because I noticed that it has received every superlative you could confer on such a tome. It deserves them all. If you haven't read it yet, start now.
I think you may be doing economics somewhat of an injustice. There is certainly a lot of politics and some unfounded conjecture too, but in many cases it is the social "science" that manages to use formalization to reach real conclusions. Macroeconomics concepts such as "stimulus" are usually the example of the bad kind. But a lot of economics, especially microeconomics isn't.
There are real usable conclusions that have come out of economics too. For example, the idea that trade is good for both parties has been largely adopted thanks to the formal arguments that eventually won over the majority of economists. This goes back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The idea of floating exchange rates comes from economics departments and it has prevented a lot of currency catastrophes.
It's still social science and it's asked to provide answers for questions that it can't answer.
Pickety's ideas are interesting and so his his data. But, they are still new and in debate. Perhaps they hold some lasting insight into long term changes in wealth disparities, but the jury is still out from an academic perspective.
Microeconomics is mostly mathematical poetry with a thin spread of real world applicability. You just try to make beautiful proofs and then give your axioms funny named like "free disposal" or such that are clearly not real life concepts. Very enlightening though if one likes math, which I do.
Somewhat related is "Enlightenment 2.0" - Joseph Heath
Politics professor explains why contemporary politics is becoming irrational by showing how certain cognitive biases in the political atmosphere make political deliberation more difficult.
If you are interested in economics, cognitive biases, and why governance is so bad, it is a must read.
So capitalism has problems, he failed to determine the cause (the state) and failed to propose efficient solutions (more taxes, austerity for the people, more interventionism) and you praise it as true science? That book is a marxist pamphlet in a thousand pages.
For the love of god, never read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt or you would consider him the bastard son of Einstein when he was fifteen.
Marxist Pamphlet? What non-sense. It's a book written by an avowed defender of capitalism, worried about its excesses in the age of slowing growth. Piketty is a social-democrat from the mainstream of European politics, not a marxist in any way or shape. Bill Gates gave the book a mixed review with many positive points, and he's not particularly known for being a marxist sympathizer.
And here's me thinking Piketty was all about blaming capitalism for wealth inequality. Care to correct me, and explain why you think he's an "avowed defender of capitalism"?
I have not read "Economics in One Lesson" but if I remember right, it is Austrian and takes ideas from good ol' Ludwing van. Today I must say, Mises views were often very short sighted, he had little understanding of money and in the end also a limited understanding what capitalism is (and why it will end).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Cen...
I've always been a bit embarrassed for the economics profession; it's always seemed to me that it could be where math meets sociology and psychology, but is instead where politics meets unfounded conjecture.
Piketty changed that for me. He does true science here. I read it because I noticed that it has received every superlative you could confer on such a tome. It deserves them all. If you haven't read it yet, start now.