Whyvert

I'd be inclined to say that transmitted culture and networks are likely intervening variables

"Genetic talent" is not exactly the right way to put it. Some people have greater patience and savings propensity, some have more ambition, some have talent and desire for gaining econ capital, others have talent and desire for gaining cultural capital. All are heritable

How do I become a hereditarian

What drivel, what absolute drivel. Really, genetics? Since when is giving somebody, a bunch of money the same as giving them capital, let alone the knowledge and networks to use wealth effectively. See your biology teacher after class, you must have missed a few lessons.

I think it is reasonable to say that the ability to use land won in a lottery effectively is a heritable trait. If your descendants also possess that ability, then it seems probable it was passed on genetically. I don't see where the drivel is here.

I didn't even realize that "ability to use land won in a lottery effectively" is an operationalizable trait, let alone one that's had h^2 computed in studies & genes identified since h^2 doesn't mean anything

All traits are heritable Rule number 1 of population genetics. And heritability is additive, so complex traits fall from simpler ones

Seems like you could also conclude that wealth provides resilience even from losing some of that wealth, while poverty imposes fragility that can even outweigh the one-time addition of wealth.

several models of effects of poverty (which I think have good evidence, and are e.g. a good defense of UBI or cash transfers) refer to worse spending under money constraints. What you refer too is perhaps a more common explanation with economists, e.g. learning to save/invest

I think Clark contrasted how much wealth correlated among siblings and father-son to test hereditarian vs. other explanations @whyvert?

so if I recall, a fully environmental model would expect more difference between son and brother?

As Clark and others have noted, one annoying thing about environmental models is that they're very... vague. Not well-defined. Very few try to make a precise definition of an environmental model which can then be tested

Clark suggests a couple of different tests that can reject at least some environmental explanations. Father-son experience very different rearing environments, whereas brother-brother (siblings) experience very similar. Yet genetic model says both links are equally related