I’ve not finished so perhaps he does deal with this later. But so far I’d say that he’s missed pensions. The rise in the capital to GDP ratio is entirely the rise of pensions savings. And pensions savings aren’t really returns to capital either. They’re delayed compensation to labour. So it’s difficult to state that the labour share of income is falling when quite obviously the amount of delayed compensation to labour is rising but being counted as a return to capital. Finally, pensions aren’t a concentration of capital to the wealthy, they’re a dispersal of it among the populace.
And if we’ve not really got a rising ratio of capital to GDP, haven’t got a rising share of returns to capital in GDP, a falling labour share, and we’re seeing a dispersal not concentration of wealth then there’s not very much left of his argument, is there?
I will be doing a series on all of this at the ASI when I have finished it. There’s all sorts of fun corollaries to his evidence and theories. But that will all wait for that series.