What the FT showed is that "It is no longer remotely close to clear that wealth inequality is going up...". This is because when they corrected Piketty's errors

What the FT showed is that "It is no longer remotely close to clear that wealth inequality is going up...". This is because when they corrected Piketty's errors, and adopted different (but similarly plausible) weighting schemes, Piketty's major claim of inequality being "high, then low, then high" vanished in Europe. If by "significant" you mean something else, please say so. So unless there is evidence that the top 1% or so systematically get significantly better returns on the same capital, an increase in capital income let's us include that there is an increase in base capital from which to derive that income. You are simply wrong on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7795331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7795331 I'm not sure why you describe me as "blatantly mischaracterizeing" Krugman since I explicitly noted it was capital income. ...unless you have evidence that high-income people save less of their income than lower-income people, then wealth will diverge. Again, this is incorrect. They might achieve a lower rate of return (including being more vulnerable to large shocks).