I am sure the point must be more sophisticated as even with 0% growth there would still be significant return on capital (risk free rate + acceptable risk premium). That is to say the world where return on capital is not greater than economic growth doesn't make any sense.

▲

carlob 4 days ago | parent [-]

The point is not whether or not it makes sense. The point is that it is fairly natural for a capitalist system to have r>g and that causes concentration of wealth. If you look historically the increasing concentration of wealth only really gets reversed by wars or revolutions. So what Piketty is arguing for is a more gentle way of redistributing wealth, because typically when one gets to 1914 levels of inequality, well… we know what happens.

	▲	gopher_space 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> because typically when one gets to 1914 levels of inequality, well… we know what happens. When it comes to resource sequestration this is a fundamental law of nature. There's no safety in a world where random people on the street see your death as a biological imperative.