Where is the Logical Fallacy?

[Autolykos]

@ravochol

Well, it is true that it is nearly always easier to start a business venture or a career with more funding as opposed to less.

Now you seem to be equivocating. In your OP, “starting a business venture or career” wasn’t what you apparently meant by “winning”, nor “failing to start a business venture or career” what you apparently meant by “losing”. So I must ask at this point, what are your intended definitions for “winning” and “losing” for this thread?

@ravochol

So those who start with more will always have an easier time of making more, than those who start with less.

As far as I can tell, this conclusion fails to hold for at least two reasons:

1. “Nearly always” isn’t the same as “always”.
2. More importantly, starting a business venture or career isn’t the same as succeeding in said business venture or career.

@ravochol

Of course, this isn’t a guarantee that every individual on a micro scale with an advantage will succeed - but that doesn’t need to be true to prove that advantages, and disadvantages accumulate, which over time results in extreme concentrations of wealth.

A deterministic assertion means that there can be no other way. Even one outlier is enough to cast the entire assertion into doubt. While you claim that your assertions in the OP are deterministic, you have not yet demonstrated this logically. Empirical evidence doesn’t matter here.