None of these arguments seems very strong. I don't believe that depreciation costs are significant compared to the rate of growth in income among wealthy indivi

None of these arguments seems very strong. I don't believe that depreciation costs are significant compared to the rate of growth in income among wealthy individuals. No numbers are presented to support that hypothesis and intuitively it seems unlikely. I don't see how the third point about landlords cuts against Piketty's premise at all; on the contrary, it supports it. Only the second point has some merit. It is possible that we're not measuring real wealth growth, but merely the froth in an economic bubble. But again, I'm not sure that historically that froth accounts for the disparity. Despite the correction in 2008, the wealthy are still handily beating GDP growth over the past 20 years.