> Are you sure it's "class and wealth" and not intelligence?

I think intelligence is the most important prerequisite, at which point class exerts influence, and then finally wealth - self-made wealth - becomes a reflection of how much of a person's ambition is focused on that area. And luck, of course.

This raises the question of what to do about pre-implantation genetic testing and gene therapies once the genes influencing intelligence can be identified and selected (and eventually modified). I can see a future in which everyone who can afford it reproduces via IVF in order to leverage gene selection, and it's considered socially awkward among the upper class to have a naturally-conceived child (as in, you don't care enough about your child to pay for the best genes). Perhaps when it comes to discussions of inequality, "we ain't seen nothing yet".

yes it is class and wealth. how could you even begin to think otherwise? do you truly think everyone who is rich is just 'smarter' than all other humans?

if so, what particular mechanisms exist for some truly idiotic child born with a trust of $1M, $10M, or $100M to lose their wealth?

> For example: George Soros. Came from a wealthy family. Utterly destitute after the war. And now he's rich.

So he was likely aided by his class, which was never lost when he lost his wealth.

this whole charade that all billionaires in the entire world are geniuses who came from the bottom rungs of society is just a story to instill hope on those ambitious enough to believe there exists meritocratic societies. the media loves to talk about 'new money' billionaires who are, inarguably, quite intellectual (elon, zuckerburg, jobs, etc) - it's just so less sexy to focus on the much larger number of billionaires who just inherited it all...

let me guess, next you're going to tell me that everyone who is a celebrity movie star, tv actor, artist, and photographer is just the most talented in their respective fields and class and wealth had nothing to do with it?

> if so, what particular mechanisms exist for some truly idiotic child born with a trust of $1M, $10M, or $100M to lose their wealth?

The mechanism of humans to spend and consume frivolously. I know plenty of people who are simply uneducated on financial matters and blew through trusts of a few million dollars thanks to accountants and trustees who enabled them to spend in excess of a sustainable withdrawal rate. They aren't too different from lottery winners, many of whom end up broke. That's why I take the view that class and culture > wealth until you start to get into the nine figures range where wealth becomes more self-sustaining, although even then if you look at the top echelon of athletes and celebrities you see similar examples of self-destruction.

The mechanisms that affect newly minted, publicly exposed figures (celebrities, athletes, and lottery winners) is largely predatory investors and money managers. Predators are a lot more successful at taking advantage of poorly educated athletes, etc. Frivolous consumption, which certainly can affect persons of any financial upbringing, is unlikely to have any material impact on those who simply inherit money and do nothing else of value to society. I believe consumerism could be impactful to truly idiotic persons of inherited wealth (with an equally classless, idiotic family surrounding them). A trust fund baby of average intelligence, brought up in a family practicing at least upper-middle class social norms, would likely be perfectly fine.

> That's why I take the view that class and culture > wealth until you start to get into the nine figures

Class, culture, and wealth form symbiosis much before fortunes of 9 figures.

Personally I believe proper taxation structures are much more effective a method to normalize against inherited wealth.

> Frivolous consumption, which certainly can affect persons of any financial upbringing, is unlikely to have any material impact on those who simply inherit money and do nothing else of value to society.

It's just a function of the numbers, isn't it?

A trust fund has $1 million in assets, 1% fees, and beneficiary withdraws $50k (5%) per year. Based on the historical data at firecalc.com, within 30 years, there's a 50% chance the fund has hit $0.

Just in fairness to the non-idiots who depleted their low single digit million trust funds, it's been much more the rule than the exception.

So they might have to go work for Goldman Sachs for a few years after graduating from Wharton, but that's not too big a burden in order to avoid bankruptcy.