The mental exercise is to compare two identical Jeff Bezos' (identify his attributes), one has the background/funds they did, one doesn't.

Of course, that's not possible, so then you do the same with other highly intelligent and skilled tech professionals. I'd argue that without the funding and other resources, those skilled pro's won't get anywhere. But with it, some would do incredibly well. It's not common in a global sense, but we see it every single day.

Comparing Bezos to thousands/millions of randomised others is pointless.

Then you may say, oh but Amazon is unique. Yes, but then there are other factors at play. Like the luck (skill? funding?) to take advantage of a unique moment in time at the start of the web. That moment isn't available eveI mean, try to start an Amazon today ... etc

I think the question is not whether Bezos, or Gates, were helped by a reasonably wealthy family. The question is- was that wealth helpful because it allowed them to fully develop their own potential; or they have no merit at all and anybody with that wealth would have done the same?

I think those who point out the privileged start of these entrepreneurs are suggesting the second, and yet that makes no sense (millions had the same privilege and didn't get anywhere close).

Disagree. I'm not suggesting the person in question does not have potential or merit and that anyone can do it. It's just that the wealth of a family can pour rocket fuel on that person to enable them to reach their potential.

Yes, that's debatable in each case, everyone has a different story. But it's very likely.

You do get the counterfactual, the plucky upstart who came from nothing. But I'd wager big that that's much rarer and more difficult.