> Since the talent follows a normal distribution, technically it can be negative or larger than 1, but for convenience we assume T~[0, 1] Part of the answer to

> Since the talent follows a normal distribution, technically it can be negative or larger than 1, but for convenience we assume T~[0, 1] Part of the answer to the original question is in this line. Normal distribution implies outliers - i.e. some are radically competent. In meritocratic conditions, you expect some to be radically successful, therefore creating a huge wealth asymmetry. I’m not saying we do live in a pure meritocracy, far from it. Only that normal distribution of talent doesn’t imply wealth should naturally become normally distributed.