Maybe actually take econ 101 so you can get the thrust of the book rather than getting lost in the details. His thesis, in that book, is that r > g and that ove

Maybe actually take econ 101 so you can get the thrust of the book rather than getting lost in the details. His thesis, in that book, is that r > g and that over many years that difference results in very large accumulations of wealth. No one disputes that there are various means that r is achieved. It doesn't change the thesis, which is wrong. r is not greater than g for any reasonable amount of time for individuals/families because humans have an amazing ability to behave stupidly and reduce r below g.