Let me quote from http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html: > when I hear people saying that economic inequality is bad and shou

Let me quote from http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html: > when I hear people saying that economic inequality is bad and should be eliminated, I feel rather like a wild animal overhearing a conversation between hunters. Nobody is arguing "inequality is bad and should be eliminated". People are arguing that inequality has increased too much and should be dialed back. The question is how (and what is a more reasonable level). > I'm all for shutting down the crooked ways to get rich. But that won't eliminate economic inequality, Ditto > And while it would probably be a good thing for the world if people who wanted to get rich switched from playing zero-sum games to creating wealth, that would not only not eliminate economic inequality, Ditto > You can't end economic inequality without preventing people from getting rich, and you can't do that without preventing them from starting startups. The policy debate is not and never was about "ending inequality". It is to find a different level. And the precise reason people are not advocating for "eliminating inequality" is incentives. As you can see: Strawman. Strawman. Strawman. All the way. Sorry.