No, but it is a variant on a theme.
People who have never learned to handle money do not know how to do so.
They typically go on spending binges, and end up back where they were in a few years. In this case, he had run through over half the money in less than two weeks.
It pretty much seems to work out that the same 20% of the population end up with 80% of the money, over time. Allowing people who work for wealth, instead of working at stealing wealth, is the “magic” of a free market system.
The rule of law enforces property rights at its best. Prevent in random violence is the basic function of the law.
You nailed it; and this seems to be a permanent feature of humanity around the globe and over centuries. One thing that contributed to my becoming a conservative was reading, in my early 20s, in the Will Durant histories of the world about a “benevolent” emperor in a long-ago Chinese dynasty who appeared to sincerely believe that he could make Chinese society more fair by confiscating the money from the wealthy and dividing it evenly among everyone. Within two years, the rich had most of the money back, and the poor were poor again. The emperor was brokenhearted.
I may be fuzzy on the details, since I read it half a century ago, but that piece of Durant's research made a great impression on me. I have lived long enough to see redistribution of wealth tried again in this country—minus any naive attempt at benevolence. Here, the announced good intentions were just cover stories for unconscionable graft. Didn't work this time, either.