[ely-s]

I don't see how any of these points directly threaten piketty's conclusion, that "r > g is a force for divergence," at least as they are presented here.

The first counterargument is nothing new. It's in the Solow model for Pete's sake! It only threatens the returns to capital as a theoretical conclusion in the distant, long-run future (going off the Solow model). Piketty has made an empirical argument off historical data.

The second paragraph saying most of r has come from capital gains in the financial market just looks silly before the one saying most of capital gains has been from an appreciation in land value. I don't know if that is how the original argument goes.

[vasilipupkin]

r > g is definitely a force for divergence. my intuition was that it is empirically unrealistic to expect r > g and Rognile's paper seems to provide quantitative evidence for this intuition