3- Picketty examined the circumstances of wealth in the 19th and 20th centuries and concluded that the 1% owned more wealth than previously. He confuses statistics with individuals, like many people who don’t understand statistics.

3) Again the opposite, the 1% gained until their peak, which was around 1910 for the top 10% owning 90% of everything of which the top 1% owned 67% (ie 90-99% owned the remaining 23%), then 1914-45 capital was wiped out for the top 1% to around 50% by 1945, further falling to 22%, by 1970, then from 1980 to 2010 back up to 29%(Piketty 2017c)
In 2020, the ONS calculated that the richest 10% of households held 43% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9%. More than that, for the UK’s WID found that the top 0.1% had a share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%.

Statistics comprise multiple individual data; otherwise, there is nothing to analyse, it’s just anecdotal, which like a single opinion, is irrelevant to subjective analysis. (Piketty 2017e))

All of which leads to his conclusion that r>g ie the growth from rent/interest by owning capital r is greater than growth by created output and thus income g. Which historically runs at r= 4-5% g= 1% over the past 1000 years. At present r= 4.2% g= 3.8%, mainly due to post-war growth rates of 3.5-4%. Projected long-term rates of 1.5%. And r rising back to 5%

Why is this problem? Compounding, the rule of 72. So at 5%, wealth doubles every 14.4 years, whereas growth at 1.5% takes 48 years. And eventually, we end up at 1910 levels of inequality, almost certainly ending in a revolution of sorts, when the bottom 90% have had enough and have so little that they quite literally have nothing to lose by taking up arms, as we have seen in many poor countries over the past 50 years. (Piketty 2017d)