It probably depends on how we define "failure". If you had your retirement accounts denominated in CSA currency at the end of the Civil War, or Papiermarks in 1923, you had a very big problem on your hands--I think most of us would count it as a "failure" if your resources have dwindled by 95%. If you were in Stalingrad in Dec of 1942, it didn't matter how much money you had--you were eating bread made of sawdust and probably experiencing a failure to achieve your desired retirement lifestyle. If we define "failure" only as "starving to death", then in all these calamities I guess most people were "successful."But there is a problem with this thinking.... thinking that some bad event will result in a failure... for most of the people in any of these events the failure rate is still zero...
My mom just missed WWI.... but lived through the great depression, WWII, Korean war, the bad investments of the 60s or 70s (not sure of the exact dates)... the high inflation during Reagan, the market crash in the 80s... the dot com bubble in 00s... and the almost great depression of 08/09.... all without failure...
OTOH, having money means having options in most cases. Border guards can be bought, private transportation can be arranged, etc. So even in the case of a real SHTF scenario, it's better to have resources than to be without.
Last edited: