Having capital leads to success. And pure luck.
Having capital leads to success. And pure luck.
But we dont have to resort to this sort of logic. We already have data showing 70% of wealthy families lost their wealth by the 2nd generations and 90% lose it by the third. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...
But to be clear, you didn't say it was ONLY capital. It sounds like you're putting that as a primary thing. But you also mentioned luck.
Can you elaborate on the luck part? Wouldnt that imply that people acting randomly have a similar chance of succeeding? If not, then there must be something MORE than luck involved right? I think everyone would agree luck is involved, but disagree on the extent. Is (bad) luck the reason why the Ford family didnt produce the richest people of today? Is an insane amount of (good) luck the reason why Zuckerberg has billions?
Moreover, a "self-made billionaire" is just a drop on the global pool of wealth. It is even good for capitalism to have these new people as a showcase, so billions will believe they can be the next, when winning the lottery if far more likely.
>Moreover, a "self-made billionaire" is just a drop on the global pool of wealth.
We are not talking about the global pool of wealth - we are talking about capitalism which is decidedly smaller. You can take out Putin, Saudi Aramco, etc.
In any case, you should be able to see how its not only about luck and existing capital.