Even Buffet claims (and knows) that he was VERY lucky to be in the places he was, with the connections he had, at the times he was. The formula for success requires a great deal of luck. There is a really interesting section of Thinking, Fast and Slow — By Daniel Kahneman which addresses this in great detail.

We can go on and on about how they were lucky and it would all be true. The fact that they were born where and when they were, the connections that fell in to place, etc. are all opportunities they were afforded. But you still can't have the success that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates had without also being incredibly talented and hard working. You could then go on to say that they were born with higher than normal ability (another form of luck). However, it all just sounds so cyclical. So I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes which I think boils it down very simply:

“Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity" -Lucius Seneca (Roman Stoic Philosopher)

No one is arguing that.

What is being argued is that they where lucky to be born in a society where their skills could make them millions.

I.e. they didn't create all those money in isolation, they made them in a system that made it possible.

Thats the point. Not that they aren't brilliant at what they do. Just that no one in that end of the wealth scale is that brilliant that they created purely based on their own skills.

Even more to the point, you can be incredibly hard working and intelligent, but without a good deal of luck (outside of being born into our society) you may not make it. Luck is a HUGE factor on many different levels when talking about wealth/success.

Again, not taking anything away from Buffett, just pointing out that luck is a really big deal that doesn't get much air time.

Exactly, you described it more to the point and I was simplifying it down quite a bit. Success doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Warren Buffet himself admits that he won the "ovarian lottery" and acknowledges a lot his success is up to luck in that way.

Warren Buffet's dad was a member of U.S. House of Representatives, which was a huge advantage to have as an investor.

How was this a huge advantage? Do you mean just class/money or something more political?

I was talking about money. I read a few years ago that Buffet was able to raise a huge amount of fund (equivalent to about 1million in today's money) when he was very young from a few of his dad's friends. Cann't recall the source at this moment.

The truth is that nobody took young Buffett seriously and he had a tough time raising money but once word got around in a couple of years that the "kid" knows what he is doing that is when he started getting big money.

Warren Buffet strikes me as the exception that proves the rule that most wealth is inherited or gained through illicit means. He's brought up so often as a model for the American dream, but he's typically the only one.

What about Amancio Ortega Gaona - starts a business selling quilted bathrobes in Spain and ends up 3rd richest person in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amancio_Ortega_Gaona

What did he do that was "illicit" (he certainly didn't inherit wealth as he started working in his early teens)?

Amancio Ortega Gaona allegedly profits from child and "slave" labour across the world. High street fashion is commonly manufactured in factories that have particularly awful welfare standards. e.g. http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG9970846/Zara...

I can't believe I'm about to do this, but here's me sticking up for sweatshops...

I'm not sure what to make of the allegations of them keeping workers captive. But assuming the work is voluntary, sweatshops are not all bad. In fact, they're the fastest way we have to bootstrap an industrial economy in a developing nation.

Yes, these factories have terrible work conditions by modern, western standards. But compared to other local job opportunities, the factories are an abundant source of relatively well paying employment.

I say 'relatively well paying' because, despite how poor the pay is, the alternatives in the local economy are worse. Often, a so-called 'sweatshop' pays at least 2-3x the average local pay. It's almost axiomatic that a person would not work in a sweatshop if they didn't think the pay was worth it. So if they have workers in their factories, then it must be worthwhile to them. (That's assuming, of course, the work is voluntary.)

Once enough factories have appeared so that they have absorbed the excess labour capacity of the local population, the wages start to rise as the factories need to compete for the available labour. They also compete on non-monetary terms, through better working conditions.

Wages will stop rising when it becomes economical for foreign companies to move production to a cheaper place (after expenses related to building an entirely new supply chain there). If that starts to happen, then excess production capacity appears, which gets absorbed by local companies. At that point, the bootstrapping is complete and you have a self-sustaining industrial economy.

Over the past 60-70 years we've seen goods (clothes being a good example because it's labour intensive and not particularly capital intensive) being produced in a succession of countries. In no particular order, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam have all had their day as the primary producer of garments. Currently, they're made in places like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

So I don't consider sweatshops to be a bad thing in and of themselves. But they are breeding grounds for all sorts of abuse (including but by no means not limited to confining workers to the factories), which is a problem. So we should be pressuring corporations to ensure safe and non-abusive work conditions in their factories. We should not be discouraging them from operating factories in low-cost-of-living locations, or trying to artificially increase wages.

Well he did inherit a great deal of influential connections, education, benefits, and (not as much) money. Given that his Father was a successful politician.

Not to say he didn't also work his ass off and have a great deal of luck. Buffett doesn't seem like a bad guy at all. Seems like a very 'grandfatherly' type.

Buffet isn't a bad guy per se, but it's worth noting that a lot of the businesses Berkshire Hathaway owns are benefiting from inequality. Wikipedia mentions jewelery and uniform manufacture as two industries they're involved in, neither of which has a squeaky clean record. Does anyone know if his companies are involved in any activism?

Sure but the fundamental question is.

Is it fair that some people make proportionally that much more money just because they happen to be born in the right country?

Again I have no problem with it happening. I am simply questioning the underlying "system".

Fair?

No, of course not, but good luck finding a way to change that. Seriously, good luck.

I am not trying to finding a way.

I am simply putting my doubts on the table. Nothing else.