AKA “the Matthew Principle” (named after Matthew 25:29, in which Jesus concludes the Parable of the Talents with ‘For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.’), “the Snowball Principle”, “unstable equilibria”, etc. Even if everyone started on a level playing field in a game of pure chance, with enough rounds wealth will pile up exponentially in the hands of an exceptionally lucky few–and those who have the resources will want to use those resources to invest in their own offspring and/or tribe (genealogical, cultural, ideological, etc.), if not exclusively, then certainly as a priority. Given that all of in known human history, violently re-leveling the playing field mostly happens as a consequence of governmental/societal/civilizational collapse, it would seem that mere redistribution of wealth is not sufficient to solve the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, but that doesn’t stop wide-eyed idealists from trying some version of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” since the dawn of time; usually at some point wiser heads prevail and the policy usually shifts to “if a man will not work, then neither shall he eat” (with whatever social safety nets the environment can support) but every once in a while everybody starves instead and every excuse is made for why it wasn’t because the effort to keep things fair have instead lead to perverse incentives that punish productivity.