> do they deserve the sudden windfall cash that they received? Did the VCs who provided the capital deserve that windfall? Do the workers who actually created a lot of the value in question through their labor get compensated proportionally to the value they built?

And does the owner of capital (investor, banker) deserve the profit (s)he gains? As jivardo_nucci said once on this very forum:

The simulation studies of Bouchard & Mezard show that, regardless of initial conditions, wealth distribution ends up a Pareto distribution with a small percentage taking almost all of the goods. The take-away of Bouchard & Mezard's studies: the very rich aren't rich because they earned it (i.e., because they are skillful or knowledgeable), they are rich mostly because they are lucky.

All my life I've assumed that, when people had a going concern or were rich, that they _earned_ their wealth. But Bouchard & Mezard says they're, for the most part, simply very lucky.

If luck, rather than skill, is the source of one's wealth, then has one "earned" that wealth? How can one lay exclusive claim to something given by chance? I would contend that no such claim can be made.

In particular, I would contend that income gained through luck is fair game for government acquisition through taxation, and if it is possible to distinguish that portion of wealth due to skill from that due to luck (and such appears possible), then the "lucky" portion is open game for acquisition to be spent or redistributed as decided by the powers-that-be.

Wealth Condensation: Why the Rich Get Richer (and the poor poorer): http://iwillknow.jesaurai.net/?p=387

The Mathematics of Inequality: https://www.austms.org.au/Jobs/Library4.html

FWIW Bouchard & Mezard are not the only researchers whose models say this:

Chance helps the rich get richer, simulation study finds: http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110722_chance.htm*