Of course not.

The reversion to mean will probably happen as a result of a violent structural break, though, not as a gradual reversal.

This means economic or political crisis. And, the same people who were made so fantastically rich from r > g will likely be the ones deciding what to do about it.

It's not like governments will wake up from their stupor and implement a basic income. Whatever happens (fascism, war, financial crisis), it'll likely make us wish for the good old days of right here and now.

I'm almost more afraid of the structural break than I am the inexorable rise of wealth inequality.

> r cannot possibly be greater than g over the long term.

Thomas Piketty would like to have a word with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...

Piketty’s empirical research has been thoroughly refuted and found to have major gaps that it’s not even funny anymore. This is why he hasn’t won the Nobel, for research that if actually accurate would have otherwise been a shoe in for the prize.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/wh...

>Piketty’s empirical research has been thoroughly refuted

Your link is somebody arguing that perhaps the data doesnt look so bad if you squint at it in the right light.

It's not a refutation. it's not even a rebuttal. It's basically disapproving FUD - "oh well if you pretend the 2008 housing bubble never happened things dont look quite so bad...". Um, ok?

There's even a little plea at the end for the reader to "understand that this is all very complicated and hard to understand". How scientific.

Of course, it is quite complicated sometimes and when he tries to break it down himself he gets himself in knots trying to defend inequality: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/desperate-effort-by-...

It's absolutely a rebuttal. If you're making a statistical/empirical claim, especially one that goes against orthodox economic theory, than robustness to the underlying assumptions is really important.

Subsequently empirical research has found that Piketty's conclusions are extremely sensitive to the way he slices the historical data and the modeling parameters. At best that's evidence of an incompetent econometrician who doesn't understand the tools enough to perform the required robustness checks. At worse, it's evidence of data snooping to shoehorn the the results into a pre-determined hypothesis.

But you don't have to take my word for it. The IMF itself performed an exhaustive robustness check and found that Piketty's conclusions simply don't hold up:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf

> r cannot possibly be greater than g over the long term

With government intervention, this can last for as long as the government lasts.

r is a result of g.

Governments are subject to math, even if it takes a while for the numbers to add up to a problem.

r is not intrinsically a result of g, even if they are "supposed" to move in lockstep. The soviet union had g without corresponding r. A high g just makes a high r easier to stomach.

Inequality doesnt really have an inbuilt limit as such and we are still a way off people owning entire countries, which wouldnt be without historical precedent.

Of course, it's not forever, and Piketty's conclusion that capitalism is not viable is wrong because of that.

But it can last for a really long time, and if something lasts for more than your lifetime, do you really care that it's finite.