FT's accusation sounds dubious.<p>For example, Giles claimed:<p>"Piketty appears to have added random numbers to certain formula to bend the data toward his hypothesis." (from BI) and Giles: "A 2 is added because the number wasn't high enough — it didn't seem to fit what he wanted to show in his charts, so he just added 2 to it..."
Source: <a href="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/537fa370eab8ea427aa0f9d8-517-334/screen%20shot%202014-05-23%20at%202.24.06%20pm.png" rel="nofollow">http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/537fa370eab8ea427aa...</a><p>First off, it's not a random number. That 2 is an estimation from the two actual numbers from (Wolff 1994) Table 4. There was neither 1960 nor 1970 numbers available and only 1962 numbers (25.9% & 7.5%) available from the original paper. Hence, for the difference of that 2 and 8 years, Piketty first estimated the 1960 Top 1% wealth share number (31.4%) by (25.9 + 7.5 - 2). Then, the 1970 number is calculated based on the 1960 number and the ratio of "top 0.1% wealth share of 1960 and 1970, with the addition of that "2" which just took off for the 1960 number (2+31.4*10.4/8.7). I would say "2" is reasonable, even though it's arbitrary, to make the whole data series more smooth. Of course someone could use other estimate number for that two years, but it only makes the whole series more bizarre, and it does not change the pattern of that data series.<p>Second, FT's own conclusion even shows the patterns are almost the same with FT's claimed "correct" numbers or Piketty's. Piketty even pointed out other researches from Saez and Zucman published after his book also confirms his finding in the book.<p>All in all, FT just sounds like trying to sell more paper/subscription.