One of the book’s main arguments is that wealth inequality is a function of the difference between the rate of return to capital (after taxes) and the economic growth rate. Inequality will increase the more that the capital return rate exceeds the economic growth rate, and it will decline when the relationship is flipped (the growth rate exceeds the capital return rate).
OK, take that as being true. He also then goes on to state that the return to capital is rising above the growth rate. Thus inequality is rising.
Which cannot be a Marxist interpretation for that does rather rely upon the idea that returns to capital will inevitably fall.
It’s also something of a crushing blow to the watermelons. For it means that as long as the return to capital is positive therefore we must have economic growth or the level of inequality will rise.
And finally it tells us something very interesting about the great reduction in inequality in the past century. It was nothing at all to do with unions, taxes, deliberate government intervention into distribution and so on. It was simply that economic growth was high.
Something for everyone there. Assuming that it is true of course.