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.
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.
> 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.
