On Topic: Economics, soccer and the income gap

Let's call this a tale of two distractions. But, to be honest, in their respective fields, they are pretty darned enormous distractions.

Each of these kerfuffles have to do with money.

And both pose pretty much the same questions: What do we think about this planet's widening income gap, and what are we going to do about it?

Here's the first case: In his almost 700-page book, 'Capital in the 21st Century,” published in March, French economist Thomas Piketty looks at trends about income distribution and wealth, at how the rich got that way and you and I did not.

Citing much historical data, Piketty writes that the value of stocks and real estate tend to climb faster and more robustly - and that's where the rich tend to sock away their dough. That, after all, he says, is the way the capitalism cookies crumble.

He also suggests higher taxes on the affluent would be a good idea.

A lot of reviewers don't cotton with that notion, including Forbes magazine, which seems to want to paint the whole spat in political left-versus-right colors.

(In its enthusiasm, Forbes on its website has compiled a list of some of the book's 'flaws,” citing other publications' reviews that didn't care much for Piketty's views and/or conclusions, either.)

Then in May the Financial Times newspaper wrote that, in effect, Piketty got his figures wrong. Some problems have to do with straightforward transcription errors, some are more about how numbers are weighted, and others point to arbitrary and unfounded conclusions, Financial Times' economics editor Chris Giles wrote.

Therefore, Giles contended, the book's overall conclusions are, well, wrong.

Piketty has responded to these charges by admitting to the New York Times that, gosh, maybe he could have explained a bit better about how he arrived at his various determinations.

I'm not an economist, and maybe this dispute simply could boil down to the old economics joke: Every year there's a test given to be an economist. The same people are asked the same questions each time, it's the answers that change.

But the battle over some of the data takes away from Piketty's serious scholarship as well as a legitimate discussion about the rich getting richer and the poor staying put.

Wealth is at the basis of the other squabble, too, this one in the sports world.

You've heard about the World Cup, right? The monthlong, 32-nation extravaganza going on in Brazil, that at least a part of which approximately half of humanity will watch?

(The U.S. men's national team will play its second game of the tournament at 5 p.m. CDT today, against Portugal. Yikes.)

But that massive event, with an estimated 3.3 million spectators on site and spread across its 12 venues, has had to jostle with headlines about corruption - by which I mean bribe-taking - among the organizing body's officials.

That there are yet more scandals involving the Féderation Internationale de Football Association, or FIFA, is not surprising. And, sadly, when the Sunday Times of Britain claimed in its June 1 edition to have seen 'millions” of emails that indicated that the awarding of the 2022 World Cup location was bought, there was more eye rolling than fist pounding.

At issue isn't only that some FIFA selection committee members allegedly were handed sacks of cash to sway their votes - in total about $5 million plus junkets, according to the Sunday Times.

But there's the matter to whom those hosting rights were awarded: Qatar - the oil-rich peninsula where temperatures can reach 120 degrees on a summer's day.

We've been told not to worry about the players, who run for two, 45-minute-plus periods per game. Or feel sorry for the millions of fans who will be there - let's face it - to drink beer and carry on, in those kinds of temperatures.

Qatar officials say they'll build gigantic, state-of-the-art air-conditioned stadiums. (Oil-rich nation, remember.) And FIFA has suggested the notion of shifting the games to the winter - which is in direct conflict with the regular club season across much of the world.

So far there's little comment from officials in regard to the lowly paid workers who will have to construct the giant structures in that blazing heat.

As John Oliver said on his HBO comedy program, 'Last Week Tonight,” about the Qatar decision, 'I hope that's true (that officials accepted bribes). Otherwise, it literally makes no sense.”

Whether we're talking about economists disagreeing - which is what they do, after all - or about truly mad ideas involving playing soccer in the Middle East in the summer, our attention is being led astray from a bigger issue.

We can't seem to get down to the basics of resolving an agreed-upon policy on what we want to do about income inequality or the poor, working or otherwise. We allow ourselves to get distracted.

In the meantime, that gap just gets wider and wider.

' Michael Chevy Castranova is Sunday editor of The Gazette. (319) 398-5873; michael.castranova@sourcemedia.net