jayeff

Nice idea, but it doesn't stand too much examination: you don't need to look very far to find glaring examples of incompetent executives. Meanwhile many of the most successful individuals came from nowhere so to speak: certainly not from the higher rungs of any corporate ladder.

For that matter does anyone think we would have heard of the Kennedys if Joe hadn't made a fortune running booze during Prohibition? Would GW be president if ability were the deciding factor in rising to the top?

The vast majority of people are average and will make little impact on society one way or another. There are a relatively small number unable to cope without help and even fewer who really have what it takes to make a major contribution in some field or other. Initially at least the distribution of these three types has nothing to do with wealth, but with even modest wealth behind them, many of the average and poor will rise to some sort of influence or authority. On the other hand, most of even the best people born into poverty will live and die in obscurity.

Wealth would be a better measure of an individual if we started life on equal terms and we all had to earn our own. But we hand our governments and corporations to the sons and grandsons of successful people with little regard for whether anything except wealth was passed down to them. That isn't a recipe for strength but for weakness: you only need look at the history of European aristocracy to see where it will lead.