That may be true, but I don't think that's really the crux of the argument. This article talks about how Amazon was initially funded by Bezos' family members: h

That may be true, but I don't think that's really the crux of the argument. This article talks about how Amazon was initially funded by Bezos' family members: https://luxurylaunches.com/celebrities/jeff-bezos-parents-investment-in-amazon.php https://luxurylaunches.com/celebrities/jeff-bezos-parents-in.... The bigger point is that relatively very few parents (like a couple percent maybe?) would be in a position to give their kid $250k to start a new venture, and it's not that surprising that the most financially successful people in the world needed both: intrinsic talent and drive, and a huge amount of support from their birth circumstances. The way I like to put it is that both of the following are true: 1. Bezos is uniquely talented and driven, and his success depended on that 2. Bezos' success also depended on him having an uncommon level of access to capital at a young age. The reason I like to say "both of these are true" is that so often today I see "sides" that try to argue that only one is true, e.g. libertarian-leaning folks (especially in the US) arguing that everything is a pure meritocracy, and on the other side that these phenomenally successful people just inherited their situation (e.g. "Elon Musk is only successful because his dad owned an emerald mine")