????俗話說，統計數據比赤裸裸的謊言更不靠譜。

????上周末就出現了這樣一幕：英國《金融時報》(Financial Times)的經濟編輯克里斯?蓋斯發表了一篇博文，質疑經濟學家托馬斯?皮凱蒂在暢銷書《21世紀資本論》(Capital in the Twenty-First Century）中使用的數據。蓋斯從皮凱蒂的數據中找出了幾個錯，由此質疑過去30年歐美財富不平等程度到底是否出現了明顯可見的加劇。

????皮凱蒂在書中認為，資本主義的社會財富會天然地變得更加集中，特別是在人口和經濟低增長時期。因此，如果過去30年財富集中度根本沒有上升的話，等于給這位經濟學家的中心理論潑上了一盆冷水。

????皮凱蒂和蓋斯的很多分歧源于對不完全數據的闡釋。皮凱蒂的書有很多地方都給人們留下了深刻印象，其中之一就是皮凱蒂不厭其煩地搜羅、分析各個國家、各個時期多年的財富數據。由于財富數據不像其他統計數據那樣豐富和標準化，圍繞“這些數據究竟意味著什么”存在分歧也毫不奇怪。

????但如果大家退后一步，看看所有這些證據：從可靠度較高的收入不平等數據，到停滯的中值工資增長率，美國缺乏經濟流動性，再到富人和窮人所獲教育質量的天壤之別。有一點很清楚，現代資本主義并不能提供一個公平競爭的舞臺，我們應該推動文化和公共政策變化，讓經濟能更好地服務于每個人。

????不過，美國人并沒有特別被這些不平等討論所左右。皮凱蒂的書中有一點非常清楚，資本主義經濟往往是一個高度不平等的社會，即使是在收入不平等處于最低水平的二戰后也是如此。直到近年來，美國人才開始不滿財富和收入的分配：過去整整一代人，普通家庭沒有變得更富裕（房地產泡沫沖擊最嚴重的是那些依賴房價上漲來彌補收入的家庭)。

????The only thing more fallacious than damn lies are statistics, or so the saying goes.

????This notion was on full display this weekend, after Financial Times economics editor Chris Gilespublished a blog post calling into question data used by economist Thomas Piketty in his best-selling work Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Giles' analysis found several mistakes in Piketty's data, mistakes which put to doubt whether there has been an observable increase in wealth inequality in Europe and the United States over the past 30 years.

????Piketty's book asserts that the concentration of wealth in capitalist societies naturally grows more extreme, especially in times of low population and economic growth, so the possibility that wealth concentration hasn't really increased in the past 30 years does throw some cold water on the economist's overarching theory.

????Many of Piketty and Giles' disagreements come down to interpretation of incomplete data. One of the parts of the book that impressed economists so much was Piketty's painstaking assemblage and exploitation of years of wealth data across countries and time periods. It is not surprising, given the fact that wealth data is much less plentiful and uniform than other statistics, that there would be disagreements over what exactly these data say.

????But when you take a step back and look at all the evidence, from much more reliable data on income inequality, to stagnant median wage growth, to a lack of economic mobility in America, to evidence of huge discrepancies in the quality of education offered to the rich and poor, it's quite clear that modern capitalism is failing to offer a level playing field and that there are cultural and public policy changes we could work toward to make the economy better at providing for everyone.

????After all, Americans have not been particularly swayed by arguments concerning inequality. If anything is clear from reading Piketty's book, it's that capitalist economies tend to be deeply unequal societies, even following World War II, when income inequality was at its lowest levels. But only in recent years, after it became clear that the average family hasn't gotten richer over the past generation (and that the housing bubble hit hardest those families leaning on rising home prices to compensate for this fact) that Americans started to grow dissatisfied with the distribution of wealth and income.