I read PG as saying, "You can't fix exponential forces with linear solutions." Furthermore I got the impression PG's essay is in favor of progressive reform suc

I read PG as saying, "You can't fix exponential forces with linear solutions." Furthermore I got the impression PG's essay is in favor of progressive reform such as reduced incarceration rates and even something like basic income but is going out of the way to make the point it still won't get rid of in equality because it cannot as long as we embrace technology. He's trying to say instead of going after the impossible bogeyman (inequality) let's go after the very real bogeyman (poverty). I feel like the author of this post reads PG totally different. He seems to think PG is saying, "Inequality isn't a big problem and it can't be fixed and screw these dumb poor people."