3 ms·
Although PG makes a few turns of phrase, one of which is quoted in OP, that implies a straw-man who wants to end all economic inequality, he also talks several
by anateus 11y ago
Although PG makes a few turns of phrase, one of which is quoted in OP, that implies a straw-man who wants to end all economic inequality, he also talks several times about tackling the effects of economic inequality. The footnote in OP referring to studies that cover the negative effects on economic inequality supports rather than disproves PG's stance on this: economic inequality has multiple negative effects.
One of PG's core arguments is that while the inequality is caused by a lot of factors, a big one of which is the snowball effect of capital, when all those factors are removed, the wealth creation aspect will still remain. He explicitly says that attacking the non-virtuous feedback loops that increase economic inequality is desirable for him, he's just interested in targeting those as well as specific negative effects (e.g. poverty) rather than have the conversation framed around "economic inequality".
- gkop 11y ago> The footnote in OP referring to studies that cover the negative effects on economic inequality supports rather than disproves PG's stance on this: economic inequality has multiple negative effects. No, that's the inverse causation of PG's stance. PG said "There are lots of things wrong with the US that have economic inequality as a symptom." If we all agreed that economic inequality is the cause then nobody would be complaining about framing the conversation around economic inequality.