[dmitriid]

Having disposable income and connections means much much more than genetics.

This comment has the relevant quote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35024721

[ldjkfkdsjnv]

Of course it does, the second paragraph in my original response states just that. This doesnt negate the fact that some people are exponentially better at business than others. Its the same in math, chess, basketball, football, writing, and every other human endeavor

[bsder]

> This doesnt negate the fact that some people are exponentially better at business than others. Its the same in math, chess, basketball, football, writing, and every other human endeavor

Citing chess directly contradicts your thesis about "innate talent".

In chess, the Polgar sisters are proof that training is the key and not genetics. The increasing existence of younger and younger chess grandmasters distributed around the world also shows that it's more about training than "innate talent".

Football and basketball do have a "innate talent" component--at the highest levels the competitors are genetic freaks.

However, any human endeavor not relying on pure physicality does not have "innate talent" limitations. "Talent" is almost always correlated to "early training" and "hard work".

[dmitriid]

The number of people who can attribute their exceptionalism to genetics is minuscule compared to people who are just wealthy and connected.

Even those that you assume "just have it" most likely just have enough means and connections to try and fail and eventually succeed than most of us.