Paradoxically, the sources available today (in the era of big data) are less precise than those that were available a century ago due to the internationalization of wealth, the proliferation of tax havens, and above all, lack of political will to enforce financial transparency, so it is quite possible that we are underestimating the level of wealth inequality in recent decades.

We should not overestimate the extent of the diffusion of ownership that has taken place over the past two centuries: the egalitarian ownership society—or even, more modestly, a society in which the poorest half of the population owns more than a token share of the wealth—has yet to be invented.

Every human society must justify its inequalities: unless reasons for them are found, the whole political and social edifice stands in danger of collapse.

The reality is that extreme inequality recurs again and again; to deal with it, societies need institutions capable of periodically redefining and redistributing property rights. The refusal to do so in as transparent and peaceful a manner as possible only increases the likelihood of more violent but less effective remedies.

We find the same pattern in virtually every region of the world: the identity cleavage deepened and conflicts over boundaries intensified while the wealth cleavage weakened and criticism of wealth became muted.

Cuando la tasa de rendimiento del capital supera la tasa de crecimiento de la producción y los ingresos, como lo hizo en el siglo XIX y parece muy probable que lo haga de nuevo en el siglo XIX, el capitalismo genera automáticamente las desigualdades arbitrarias e insostenibles que socavan radicalmente los valores meritocráticos en que se basan las sociedades democráticas.