I don't have much background in economics so I don't know if Galbraith's criticisms are sound, but it's an interesting critique.
TL;DR: "In sum, Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a weighty book, replete with good information on the flows of income, transfers of wealth, and the distribution of financial resources in some of the world’s wealthiest countries. Piketty rightly argues, from the beginning, that good economics must begin [with]—or at least include—a meticulous examination of the facts. Yet he does not provide a very sound guide to policy. And despite its great ambitions, his book is not the accomplished work of high theory that its title, length, and reception (so far) suggest."
I find it an interesting critique, too, though I do wonder whether it hits the mark. I'm no economist, but (assuming the fundamental work put into this book is as groundbreaking and unprecedented as said by those who are economists) does the book need to prescribe policy? Can't it stand on it's own, and perhaps aim to change the public policy discourse instead of coming down from on high with two stone tablets?
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twent...
I don't have much background in economics so I don't know if Galbraith's criticisms are sound, but it's an interesting critique.
TL;DR: "In sum, Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a weighty book, replete with good information on the flows of income, transfers of wealth, and the distribution of financial resources in some of the world’s wealthiest countries. Piketty rightly argues, from the beginning, that good economics must begin [with]—or at least include—a meticulous examination of the facts. Yet he does not provide a very sound guide to policy. And despite its great ambitions, his book is not the accomplished work of high theory that its title, length, and reception (so far) suggest."