There is a degree of worship in American society of the famous and those who have extreme wealth.  While one can say that individuals who happen to have both may possess skill and got there partly due to effort, can anyone prove that the extremely wealthy or are famous didn't get so due mostly to luck?  I can give examples that people think of as prime examples, and use these as proof of what I talk about.  But am interested to see if others would argue it is mostly luck.

* Michael Oher, DL and story of the Blind Side.  Was found by chance by a wealthy family who worked with him, and got him to be able to get to college, where he then went on to become a first round draft pick in the NFL.  If the wealthy family didn't find him, does anyone think he would of ever ended up in the NFL?

* Zuckerberg and Facebook.  Would anyone here argue that if he was NOT at Harvard, and didn't have those connections, plus a wealthy friend who could come up with initial start up funds, Facebook would of ever taken off?  And the name of the book that Social Network was based on?  Accidental Billionaires:

http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Billionaires-Founding-Facebook-Betrayal/dp/0385529376

One could argue that some social network site would of did what Facebook did eventually.

* Michael Jordan.  Exactly WHAT did have to do with his possession of pure athleticism that got him where he was?  Same goes for a number of these top athletes.  If they didn't get lucky in the gene pool, would they of ever got where they were?

* Bill Gates.  Born to a rich family and ended up at MIT.  If he didn't have this, would anyone here argue Microsoft would of even been Microsoft, and where it is today?

* Ted Williams.  You can go with the baseball player, but how about the Golden Voice?  If he didn't get discovered by a local radio station, do you think he would of gotten the break he had?

* Amanda Black (Friday).  Does anyone attribute anything of her 15 minutes of fame and selling hundreds of thousands of her inane Friday song, to anything but getting lucky?  I look forward to someone arguing her talent got there.  Throw in the viral video of the week and not say it isn't luck that does it, that some individual got the right lottery ticket of the moment that resonated.

Based on this, anyone want to argue that it isn't mostly luck that leads to fortune or extreme wealth?

What about:

• John D. Rockefeller
• Robert Henry Dow
• Larry Ellison
• Sam Walton
• *edit* Mark Cuban

Those are just a few.

They didn't hit the gene lotto. In all of their cases, they used hard work and successful business practice to become billionaires. Yes, in some cases people have a good family history and background to get them to great heights (such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and such), but its not always the case.

This topic is interesting though. When I get the time, I actually have an outline for a book I want to write on the subject - the metrics of fame. Eventually, I'd like to research a lot of celebrities to see if their fame involved pure luck, or if there are solid, objective metrics that define many of them, and how it can apply to the average American.

It's mostly about being at the right place in the right moment.  Possessing extreme wealth will never be subject to one's skills because I believe it's impossible to be worth that much money.

Another problem is that in the capitalist system the more money you have the more you can make. Which is not intrinsecally a problem but given the current situation of the world and the actitude of those who like to waste money on trivial things, then it really becomes an issue.

There's a lot more to it, but I want to see how this thread develops.

No, it's mostly talent.

Just pick your favorite artist and ask yourself if she/he is just lucky or talented.

Al Pacino and Robert De Niro mostly lucky? No they're extremely talented.

Obama mostly luck? No, he's extremly charismatic, highly intelligent and extremely well spoken.

Etc

You are correct, but I think he refers to EXTREMELY wealth people. I'm thinking more along the lines of investors and the kind of people that think of money making as a game.

A good example would be Bill Gates. He is doing great things with his money but there's absolutely no way that he is worth that much money.

How is Bill Gates not worth that much money? Please give me a detailed analysis as to why he is not worth the amount of money Forbes and other firms state he is.

Amanda Black is extremely wealthy?

Yeah yeah, I agree with you that most of those super business-men and capitalists seem more lucky than they are talented or hard-working.

I think he means ethically, morally, humanely.

Think like a Christian. Do you think Jesus would say to Bill Gates "Dude, you are worth all that wealth, just keep it"?

I'm not talking about what "is" he worth. Obviously if you take on account all the assets that he posses then he technically is worth that much money.

My point is that you can't say he is that rich because of talent. He is rich because he was at the right place in the right time.

Actually, I can say he is rich because of talent.

Bill Gates is talented as a programmer, marketer, and other core competencies that allowed him to co-found a multi-billion dollar company. Through his time, dedication, and team management, he was able to create arguably the most important piece of software in the history of personal computing.

Because of that, and continued succuesses, his company has had an incredible valuation. Since he is part owner, he is compensated with stock options in the company, which yield him his worth. If his company did not operate at the level of efficiency that it does, then he would be a broke pauper. Furthermore, if his product(s) were utter and complete garbage, they would have many other competitors that are far superior.

You can say the same things about many businessmen like Steve Jobs (Apple - helped create the Mac, iPod, iPhone, iTunes and so on), and Larry Ellison (Oracle and helped push for database management in the corporate world), and others that I mentioned like John Rockefeller and Herbert Dow.

Now, on the other end, you can say 'right place right time', but the issue with that is that if that is indeed the case, then another man may of taken his place at a later date. You would then say the same thing about him, ad infinium, ad absurdum.

The ability to create wealth and worth by the value of ones production is a fascinating thing. Because of it, people can be valued at incredible numbers. Instead of arguing with people amassing such wealth and worth, it would likely be a better topic to question why people gave them so much money in the first place. In many of the cases, however, you can see that their inventions have done so much for humanity, that they are indeed worth what they have earned. I mean, if it wasn't for Larry Ellison, his foundational principles of database management wouldn't of allowed SQL to be so prolific in our society. Without him, we would likely be years behind in the usage of digital databases which would mean that many videogames would not exist that are database driven, nor would VGChartz exist, nor would we have as many ancillary companies that are founded and run around data-driven technologies.

To summarize: If tomorrow one man finds the cure for HIV, and can sell the cure for $10 and sold 1 billion cures, should he not recieve $10 billion dollars?