Capitalists get cash lots of ways. Some earn it and save it. Some get it from profits on investments. Some inherit it. One size only fits all if you're in the hate business.

I can't name impoverished risk-takers, but if you are prepared to accept a correlation between impoverishment and suicide, there are stats.

Also, it's not clear that "impoverishment" is the right test of risk. To say that someone who merely loses their home but can still make ends meet didn't take a meaningful risk is silly. Sure, plenty of capitalists only invest money they won't miss. But others take life-altering risks. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

The problem with your analysis is that for you, the only capitalists who matter are the ones who succeed. But they are not "capitalism," and most fans of capitalism regard them as a necessary evil to be dealt with by dynasty-busting estate taxes. Fans of capitalism look at the outputs, the Fords instead of Ladas, the stocked grocery shelves, the choices that mostly match the market's demands. Te outputs are the test of the system; the wealth is just the maguffin.

The wealth calculations are real. But they represent the discounted present value of future cash flows. Those cash flows don't exist until they happen, and they don't happen if the recipient isn't going to get them.

Capitalism is trickle-up economics. The more people have money to spend, the more money capitalists make on sales. Capitalists love wide distribution of spendable income, because it creates a great concentration of wealth. But if there is a wide distribution of income, it's kinda hard to say the capitalists are preventing the wide distribution of income. (Maybe that's why there's so much entrepreneurship in Scandinavia.)

Maldistribution of income can be fixed by labor laws and safety nets, both of which are good for capitalists, because both create income to be spent.