Sorry no. There are people smarter and more cunning than those three that had worse outcomes. Most generational wealth that is not protected by a standing army

Sorry no. There are people smarter and more cunning than those three that had worse outcomes. Most generational wealth that is not protected by a standing army rarely lasts a few generations. A lot of lasting generation wealth is from cronyism as well. For example many of the large land owners (even to this day) in England descended from folks that were involved in the Norman invasion of England. Some of those didn't directly use their 'superior genes' to conquer the land, they just happened to be buddies with William I. There was a lot of propping up of google/fb in their early days by other wealthy investors and in the case of Google, the US government. Feel free to continue to worship your tech gods for their superior genetics though. Circumstance, luck and timing has a lot to do with the current set of billionaires we have in tech. They rode a wave of technological innovation that they themselves didn't even invent. Well other than maybe Pagerank. That was pretty awesome. Most of the ideas were lifted from the "greatest hits" of computer science though. In the end there has to be a 'winner.' It could have easily been a different group of people if public preference was ever so slightly different. I could be easily typing this message on a AOL browser right now if the outcome was slightly different. This purely "genetic winner" viewpoint is super narrow viewpoint that if one is not careful can quickly get disgusting. Genes that are advantageous in one situation can be poor in another. Barring outliers, there is sometimes no "best" when talking about genetics/expression of genes. Pugs do much better around humans than wolves. Who has the better genetics?