As usual, it's a well-written article. I wonder about a few things: 1. Why look at the top 100 people? It's an incredible small sample size. Those 100 people r

As usual, it's a well-written article. I wonder about a few things: 1. Why look at the top 100 people? It's an incredible small sample size. Those 100 people represent a huge amount of wealth, but a small number of people. What are the trends is we zoom out to, say, the top million wealthiest people? Does his thesis play out? 2. By extension, looking at the top 100 makes Graham feel myopic and elitist, which is what I think a lot of the comments in this thread allude to. By definition there can only be 100 richest people. The odds of breaking into that group are extremely small. 3. Graham's job is to convince people they have a chance to making it big. That's not a bad thing: we need those people. But it doesn't speak to broader needs of society. So, honest question, because I haven't researched his essays in recent years: does Graham write about the situation of the bottom 100 million, in addition to the top 100?