The article explains it's reasoning - most of the wealth created since 1971 has been in the finance, tech, and globalization sectors. Other sectors have been shrinking, but people in finance, tech, or globalization have been doing great. (I assume he's measuring "wealth" as in "net change in revenue", where this statement is roughly correct.) Those three sectors are essentially dependent upon the microprocessor - tech obviously so, but finance is basically the province of computer models these days, and globalization is enabled by the communication, data storage, and algorithmic improvements made possible by software.
The article title is not very accurate. The 4004 was an evolutionary dead-end. The later, unrelated, 8008 design was a much more important chip. But the 4004 was the first successful COTS microprocessor, which is why it is remembered.
Haven't read the article but my immediate thought is that it's kind of obvious if you simply replace it with "microprocessors". I don't know about the historical significance of the 4004 though.
The 4004 was the first commodity-off-the-shelf microprocessor.
I think you mean Commercial Off The Shelf - COTS
> Does anyone have a source for the claim “ Most of the wealth created since 1971 is a result of Intel’s 4004 microprocessor”.
If they attributed it to a Famous Important Person would it seem more credible to you?
It's just hyperbole.
I don't think it a hard fact statement, more of a "I believe this to be so, isn't this incredible!" type of statement.