# MICROBLOGGING: Þe Nature of French Régimes in þe 1800s; & Oþer Topics to Be Added...

### r > g not in contradiction but rather the fulfillment of the desired purpose of every French régime in the 1800s

*r > g not in contradiction but rather the fulfillment of the desired purpose of every French régime in the 1800s*

### Þe Nature of French Régimes in þe 1800s:

‘Rakesh Bhandari@postdiscipline: “the fundamental inequality r > g can explain the very high level of capital inequality observed in the 19th century, & thus in a sense the failure of the French Revolution. The formal nature of the regime was of little moment compared with the inequality r > g”. Thomas Piketty

I am not sure this is correct. The French Revolution has given the peasants of France their farms as property. And so the right pulled a judo move: all attempts to tax or redistribute or socialize property were painted as attempts to deprive peasants of what they had gained in the Great French Revolution. Thus the linchpin of all régimes was that property was to be protected: thus all were high-r régimes first. Was that part of their formal structure? Perhaps. But r>g was not in contradiction to the desired purpose of any régime, but rather the fulfillment of its _telos_.

<https://substack.com/chat/47874/post/91bfbe16-49ac-4162-b6fa-293fcd85d84e>

If r = rate of return and g= growth rate, how can r>g for any extended period?