If 29/384 got that way purely on inheritance, then inheritance is statistically extremely significant in getting into that 384; the rich don't make up anywhere near 7.5% of the population, but that list is at a minimum 7.5% born rich. Also, as one example, Gates was born filthy rich, I don't the word "inheritance" occurs everywhere on that list where it plays a part.
That list is irrelevant. The people there are not representative of the entire population. They only represent the top .xx1% and are a very poor sample.
What about the people who aren't on the list? There are a lot more of them, and they're still multimillionaires. We have no information about them, nor do we have any information from which we can derive conclusions from.
As far as the top billionaires, it is true that many of them were extremely fortunate in life and had some money from birth. Only around 30 of them made their billions that way, the others worked to turn their millions into billions, which still takes a great deal of work (and pure luck).
I see this argument going nowhere unless we can agree that everyone who has under $X to start and creates $Y over the course of their lives counts as someone who became successful through capitalism. But I doubt we can agree what the X and Y values should be.
