On r > g

Here's what drives me up the wall about academic economists, and economists in general:

When we absolute know (and there is no credible disagreement about this) that wealth inequality has increased to Gilded Age levels, economists, even progressive economists like Jamie Galbraith and Yves Smith, quibble that "it isn't because r > g" or some other such blather about "Cambridge capital controversies," rather than looking at the facts staring them in the face, the actual causes of the acceleration of wealth inequality: our carry-traded capital markets and our winner-take-all compensation of chief executives (which extends to all who get bonuses based on stock price, a small fraction of employees).

But as the saying goes, you could put all the economists on the planet in a line and they would never reah a conclusion. Meanwhile the march toward either (a) security state neofeudalism, or (b) social and economic collapse that ushers in some form direct democracy.

Choose.