Does Naval's view on wealth overlook social inequality?

This is an excellent question, and a common one that arises when reading Naval. Simply put, I don't believe Naval's perspective on wealth completely ignores societal inequality, but it does place its emphasis elsewhere, not primarily on solving this particular problem.

Breaking it down makes it clearer:

Firstly, what exactly is Naval's perspective on wealth?

You can understand Naval's wealth philosophy as a guidebook for "how an individual can maximize their probability of winning within the current game rules."

His core ideas roughly boil down to these:

Wealth is not money, but assets: True wealth consists of things that generate income while you sleep—like equity in companies, code, or intellectual property. Money is merely a tool for exchanging time and wealth.
Leverage is essential: You can't get wealthy by just trading your time for money. You must learn to use leverage. In modern society, the best forms of leverage are code (write once, serve the globe) and media (write an article or record a podcast consumed by countless people)—these are almost "permissionless" to employ.
Pursue "Specific Knowledge": Avoid learning skills everyone else has. Instead, seek knowledge uniquely suited to your talents, passions, and curiosity—knowledge that only you (or very few) can master. This type of knowledge can't be simply taught; you have to discover it yourself.
Play the long game: Wealth, relationships, and knowledge all grow through compound interest. Work with honest, long-term thinkers and dedicate a lifetime to building your career and reputation.

In summary, Naval provides a highly rational, practical, individual-focused mental model. He explains what the rules of the game are in this era of capitalism and the internet, and how you should adapt your "gear" and "skill points" to conquer the "financial freedom" quest.

Secondly, why might this view seem to "ignore social inequality"?

This brings us to the "game" itself. No matter how well-written Naval's guide is, it doesn't change a fundamental fact: the "starting settings" for each "player" are completely different.

It's like a race:

Naval's theory teaches you how to run faster, with proper form and better stamina management.
But the issue of societal injustice lies in the fact that everyone's starting line is inherently unequal.

Specifically:

The inequality of birth: Some are born into families providing good education and resources, exposed early to computers, programming, and nurturing interests. Others are born into poverty, struggling for basic necessities and education, let alone "permissionless leverage"—they may not even have internet access.
The inequality of opportunity: Naval emphasizes taking risks and working for yourself. But the capacity to bear risk is worlds apart for someone with family support compared to someone supporting a family who can't afford any risk of unemployment. The latter has zero margin for error.
Systemic biases: Discrimination based on race, gender, geography, and other factors exists in society. These create intangible barriers on the path to wealth for many, yet Naval's individual striving theory doesn't focus much on them.

Therefore, critics argue that Naval's view on wealth feels like advice tailored to players who are already qualified to be on the field, or even hold advantageous positions. For those who can't even get onto the track or start miles behind the starting line, these "run faster" techniques can seem reminiscent of Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake."

So, how should we view Naval's perspective dialectically?

I believe the most fitting analogy is: Naval wrote a Player's Handbook, not a Game Rules Revision Proposal.

As a Player's Handbook: It's excellent. It tells you how, within the existing, imperfect, and even somewhat unfair system, an individual can increase their probability of survival and success through wisdom and effort. It encourages independent thinking, lifelong learning, and value creation—all highly positive in themselves. For those with some foundational advantages, this philosophy is a powerful tool for empowerment.
It is not a Game Rules Revision Proposal: Naval's primary goal isn't to dissect and critique the flaws of the entire capitalist system or propose comprehensive social reform solutions. He occasionally touches on societal issues (like supporting Universal Basic Income, UBI), showing he recognizes systemic problems. But his core message to the public consistently focuses on "what the individual can do."

Conclusion

Naval's perspective on wealth indeed focuses on individual agency while relatively downplaying issues of structural societal injustice.

Is it useful? Absolutely. For individuals seeking to change their destiny, it provides a powerful mental framework.
Are there limitations? Definitely. We cannot naively assume that mastering these methods guarantees success for anyone, thereby overlooking the larger societal factors that hinder success.

Therefore, we can adopt this approach:

Keep one eye on Naval: Learn his wisdom, enhance your competitiveness under the existing rules, and strive to play your own "cards" as well as possible.

Keep the other eye on society: Stay aware and empathetic. Recognize the real injustices embedded in the social system, and support efforts aimed at making the "game" itself fairer, allowing more people to stand on an equal starting line.

This way, we can become both a stronger "player" and a more socially responsible "citizen."