It is classic circular reasoning. Why should they have all money? Well because they are the best ones at allocating the resources. How do we know they are best at allocating resources? Because they have all the money.
"To him that hath, more shall be given
and to him that hath not, more shall be taken away"
I suppose it was more popular in seemingly simpler times when the playing field was more even and the players more evenly matched and distributed. But here we are in the future, and that game seems to have been concluded.
I myself rather preferred the view from the shoulders of giants than the undersides of their feet.
There is a agent simulation paradigm where a large amount ofagents engage in one-on-one transactions and wealth is transferred. I haven't followed but decades ago there was a simulation where with rather simpler rules, in the end all the wealth concentrated to one agent.
In this model, it's the rules of the game, not the morality of the players that causes the effects.
It seems you're implying that since being a billionaire is not 100% heritable, it must be a result of individual merit (leap 1) which is purely synonymous with skillfully allocating resources (leap 2) more than any other type of person (leap 3) rather than any other explanation for how they got there, say, sociopathy, right place right time, etc.
> It seems you're implying that since being a billionaire is not 100% heritable, it must be a result of individual merit
Nope, another strawman, I never claimed it was 100% merit. You claimed that wealth is purely heritable which is easily proven false by observing reality.
> sociopathy
So your claim is that sociopathy is more important for getting rich than skill?
> right place right time
Choosing the right business to build given the state of the world is a skill. Business requires luck the same way poker requires luck, and let me tell you, if you play poker vs a skilled player you will lose a lot of money.
