"PG insist on confusing extreme economic inequality with normal economic inequality"
Last post:
"Most people have nothing against the inequality created by most startups"
His point was that startups can produce extreme income inequality (without the system being rigged). The whole point of his essay was to not lump all the causes of income inequality together.
I haven't changed anything I am just adding more context to what I mean.
PG believes that people are against the inequality startups create. They are not because most startups don't become family dynasties. Thats the point. Only PG is talking about startups. Thats not what people talk about when they critique economic inequality and that's what he doesn't seem to understand.
Comments
You changed your criticism. First post:
"PG insist on confusing extreme economic inequality with normal economic inequality"
Last post:
"Most people have nothing against the inequality created by most startups"
His point was that startups can produce extreme income inequality (without the system being rigged). The whole point of his essay was to not lump all the causes of income inequality together.
I haven't changed anything I am just adding more context to what I mean.
PG believes that people are against the inequality startups create. They are not because most startups don't become family dynasties. Thats the point. Only PG is talking about startups. Thats not what people talk about when they critique economic inequality and that's what he doesn't seem to understand.