I wouldn't dismiss this critique too quickly... It does indeed appear (I have not read the book, and I plan to) that the crux of his thesis is that capital can

I wouldn't dismiss this critique too quickly... It does indeed appear (I have not read the book, and I plan to) that the crux of his thesis is that capital can grow at 4-5% over the long run, whereas economic growth only grows at ~3%, and thus concentration of capital always runs away from normal economic growth. ... and this idea ... that you can regularly achieve even 4% annual return over the very long term ... has gotten a lot of people in trouble. Not just in the recent unpleasantness, but historically over many different economic cycles. Regardless of how receptive I may be to this book, or these ides, I am deeply skeptical of this assumption.