Honestly, I got more information out of the comments than that article, which was mostly insults advancing a strawman of PG's position. But back to what you're

Honestly, I got more information out of the comments than that article, which was mostly insults advancing a strawman of PG's position. But back to what you're saying, can you give more examples at least? To pick some of the richest (most extreme?) people for wealth inequality, is it wrong that for example, Warren Buffet managed to acquire a lot of money and then give most of it to charity? The problem with advancing an ill-defined position like 'extreme' inequality is that I'm not sure that anyone is on the same page, though based on the abuse hurled at anyone asking questions, it seems like questioning it is equivalent to hating the "poors" (at least, if Medium is to be believed). I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, I have great sympathy for the poor and I try to help where I'm able. Is Elon Musk be another example? I'm not sure we'd have SpaceX or Tesla if he wasn't able to get rich. If there's a problem with wealth, I'd say that it's where incentives are misaligned (e.g. a CEO might get a huge bonus by laying people off). As for value... I think too many people are unfamiliar with the terms as used in economics and that's leading to very confusing posts. Startups may create wealth (new services that didn't exist, new technology, etc.) and that's the important thing. 'Value' is either completely subjective or tied to currency (I repeat myself) so I don't think anything useful comes out of discussing that. I think a lot of people get distracted over movements of currency, when the real focus should be the increase of global wealth and making sure that everyone has access to at least some basic standard of living. The world has been moving in that direction for a long time and I certainly hope that more people are able to live well in the future, though it seems like energy security is the most likely bottleneck.