They are like minded. His prescription of a 30% global tax and 80% in the USA is dangerous and unenforceable. Even some of his data is dubious. Her support and promotion of his work is pure politicking.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Everyone's data has flaws when scrutinized enough, but I'm pretty sure the good folks over at Financial Times overplayed it a bit.
I don't see anything dangerous about his tax scheme, other than it is dangerously passive. Recurring financial crises and a widening income gap are probably more dangerous than a 30% global tax. The warping of political systems in the developed world around the whims of wealthy elites & unelected technocrats seems like another more dangerous trend. Unenforceable is definitely the right way to characterize it though.
I also don't see a problem with Warren supporting an economist who supports her position on things? Politics is inherent in everything, attempting to claim the apolitical middle ground is pointless and usually a political exercise in misdirection. If he ends up a hack like Reinart & Rogoff, then it'll blow up in her face...or maybe it won't, as it sure hasn't slowed anyone's roll on austerity.
Anyway, not a humongous fan of Piketty but I'm glad to see the haters shook