yes! i think we’re agreeing, just interpreting slightly differently. he treats historical events as contingencies, shocks. 1/

what i’m suggesting is it’s best not to interpret that as Piketty making a claim that this is the only or the best way to treat such events. 2/

it is better to understand that as reflective of *his project*, which like any project attends to some things and simplifies, abstracts away the complexity, of other things. 3/

Piketty attends to a core wealth dynamic, abstracts away a lot of other stuff as mere contingency. but that’s not really a claim that everyone should shrug off those other things as mere contingency. it’s an artifact of, the negative space surrounding, what Piketty devotes himself to explaining./fin