If I could summarize PG's thesis (and his critics misunderstanding) in one sentence here it is: Beware any promises to cure social ills that make an appeal

If I could summarize PG's thesis (and his critics misunderstanding) in one sentence here it is: Beware any promises to cure social ills that make an appeal to economic inequality, just as you'd be cautious of a surgeon trying to cure you by releasing evil spirits. I don't know why it's taking 100+ comments to get to the bottom of this 1% of the rich "have more wealth" than the Bottom 30%. It's simple: it's a misleading statistic and there's no defending it, or anyone who uses it to make their case. The reason why it's misleading points to the inevitable problems of using summary statistics of wealth inequality to evaluate economic performance.