[Emma_Goldman]

Growth is a useless indicator. The whole point of Piketty's argument is that the return on capital tendentially outstrips the rate of growth, and that large investors have access to especially high return assets. The OP is right that a 5% average annual return is conservative.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Growth is a useless indicator. The whole point of Piketty's argument is that the return on capital tendentially outstrips the rate of growth

I'll sidestep that Piketty measures wealth and calls it capital. Because that observation says nothing about how risk is distributed across those returns.

> large investors have access to especially high return assets

$1bn doesn't make for a "large investor" in institutional terms.

> OP is right that a 5% average annual return is conservative

No, they are not.

There are objective measures for this. I've worked closely with endowments the world over. A manager pitching a 5% target return on a fund with a 3.5% annual drawdown as conservative would be fired. A banker pitching the same would be subject to professional sanctions.

[Emma_Goldman]

> Cute

Sorry, this is childish and you don't substantively respond to the core point. I am not going to waste my time.

[JumpCrisscross]

Fair enough. Edited.

> you don't substantively respond to the core point

Yes, I do. Even if capital returns well in excess of growth on average, that doesn't change that the returns on assets in that excess regime are riskier than those below it. (This actually being formally provable by way of seniority.) Excess returns are never achived conservatively, let alone very conservatively.

Piketty's work has been seriously challenged. It makes good points. But it also contains bad ones, including a couple really sloppy and unsubstantiated assertions. His conflation of wealth and capital being germane to your argument.