[crayola]

Taleb seems to be engaged in two vendettas (as is clear from reading the Black Swan): first, economists; second, the French.

One would therefore be well advised to take his notes about the work of a French economist with a pinch of salt.

"The optimal strategy is to go become an academic or a French-style civil servant, the anti-wealth generators."

To pick but one example among many others, Louis Pasteur was French, an academic and (therefore) a civil servant, and arguably contributed to save many lives. Or does that not qualify as wealth generation?

[yummyfajitas]

Taleb backs up his argument with careful math - is the math right or wrong?

[crayola]

Yes the maths are likely right, but that does mean Taleb is being fair to Piketty.

Economics is not just about the maths, it's about whether the maths being proposed (i.e. the model) are the right tool to understand and explain the observed data (and do predictions / counterfactuals). So the question of interest (is Piketty right or wrong) is not a question of someone's "maths" (either Piketty's or Taleb) being "right" or "wrong". Sorry if you find this obvious -- perhaps I missed the point of your question?

[notacoward]

I don't agree that Taleb's math is any more careful than Piketty's. He has his own set of "fat tail" hobby horses to ride, and does a poor job showing how they apply here. The question should not be whether Taleb's math is right or wrong, since it could be right but irrelevant. The question is whether Piketty's math is right or wrong. Neither Taleb, nor Brooks, nor many here, seem to be addressing that.

[shiven]

Now the math only argument is a bit of an anti-straw-man, ain't it?

2+2 == 4, always, so the underlying math is sound. But two bikes, a car don't make!