3 ms·

>So let's be clear about that. Ending economic inequality would mean ending startups. I'm curious why this comment was in the first version and not in the seco

>So let's be clear about that. Ending economic inequality would mean ending startups. I'm curious why this comment was in the first version and not in the second, simplified version since this was to me the most simplistic point pg made, even going so far as to say "Let's be clear" Pg seems to be arguing that income inequality and startups are mutually exclusive and if we are to have startups, we must accept some income inequality. Thats what I'm interpreting that to mean at least. This to me just seems like, why can't we have both? More income equality and startups? I'm not seeing the reasons we cannot

grecy 11y ago
Though it's complete nonsense because it assumes the only motivation for founding a startup is to gain extreme wealth Ending extreme economic inequality would mean founders of successful startups would no longer become absurdly richer than average. There would absolutely still be people passionate about doing things, and they would absolutely still make startups. Their motivation for doing so would no longer be extreme wealth. If people choose not to do a startup because it can't make them extremely wealthy, that's perfectly fine.