So by that logic can anyone who is not a homeless orphan with nothing to their name be self made? Even then, they'd probably get disqualified if a passer by took pity on them and bought them a free meal.
Additionally, well, yes - 'self made' is a myth when our societies and economies are a network. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.
However, you're obviously extending the logic far beyond the way I intended to extend it.
I'm really talking about something closer to "a median upbringing." Someone who saved up an attainable sum just by working a typical job or by obtaining a modest "middle class attainable" sized loan to seed the business.
Kylie started with a much larger seed: complimentary marketing worth actual millions. Not a $25,000 loan that was paid back via single store sales to start a sandwich shop like Jimmy Johns. (Which, I realize, is a decent chunk of change in 1982, but it's basically nothing compared to what Kylie started with)
What you imply is that by having a large seed, succeeds was guaranteed.
My take is that if somebody else getting the same inheritance wasn't able to achieve success, then it counts as self made for the one that did succeed (with said inheritance).
It’s a lot more useful and interesting to draw the line earlier.
That just redefines "self-made" to mean anyone that succeeded, which isn't very useful.