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.