No it's not. Money is a positive-feedback loop. No intelligence required.

Lottery winners and the like tell a different story, don't they?

And do you think an 80 IQ founder == 120 IQ founder all else being equal?

> And do you think an 80 IQ founder == 120 IQ founder all else being equal?

Musk and Bezos seem to have come to roughly similar outcomes, so evidence suggests yes.

The people who play lotto's are very uneducated, so it's selection bias. None of them were taught how to manage money because they never had any.

Founders aren't the ones with the money. They're making it for someone else and then being paid for that.

In any case, it's what happens on average that matters, not minuscule exceptions. Money makes money.

Does that imply that everyone who started with more money than Musk now has even more money than Musk? Or perhaps it implies that you just can't ever get poorer?

I don't think its possible, or fair, to reduce success to a single digestible dimension.

You deny that investment costs money? You deny that investment makes money? The more you make, the more more you invest; the more you invest, the more you make. Exceptions are irrelevant to the norm.

And somone had to come out the winner in a stochastic Market. It just halpened to be Musk. No competence requirer, at all.