It seems that you can simplify what you're saying to "wealth IRL is acquired mostly by crime, manipulation, or abuse, rather than skill". The simulation doesn'

It seems that you can simplify what you're saying to "wealth IRL is acquired mostly by crime, manipulation, or abuse, rather than skill". The simulation doesn't seem to add to your point. Instead, you're making an empirical, falsifiable claim about the nature of wealth acquisition. At this point, you're disagreeing less with me and more with the economists in the original article, Piketty and Saez, who found skill to be the top driver, not "next to nothing."