The odds of breaking in to that list are something like 1 / 300,000,000 but evidence is anyone can do it. MacKenzie is also my subtle counterargument to "Look at the Waltons". Breaking up the wealth ain't always voluntary.
Those are about the same odds as breaking in to the House of Lords.
Would the explanation that "while it is statistically impossible, it is strictly speaking plausible for an extremely devoted and lucky regular person to join the club" be a good enough excuse for re-introducing a landed aristocracy to American government, in your estimation?
Seems to me where the system is fair is unimportant, first we know it's not. Second is it designed to create disparities and a negative experience for most people. From a societal point of view that probably bad. And as I like say, the needs and wants of a couple of super wealthy people shouldn't be anything society cares about.
This is called recency bias. "This time is different." as opposed to all the other times they said "This time is different."
200 years ago> There's a very specific reason for that: the cotton revolution and the monopolies created by it.
150 years ago> There's a very specific reason for that: the industrial revolution and the monopolies created by it.
100 years ago> There's a very specific reason for that: the oil revolution and the monopolies created by it.
Etc.
1. There's a very specific reason for that: the computer revolution and the monopolies created by it.
Wait a few years to see what happens to teh children of the people on that list.
2. Look at the Waltons -- The only reason Bezos is the richest person in the word is because the waltons share the inherited wealth between them.
Look at a list of families, for a more accurate view of the Aristocracy:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/070116/top-25...
Most of these are ~100 years old.
Walton, Koch, Cargill-MacMillan, Cox, SC Johnson, (Edward) Johnson, Hearst