> "I feel like PG is missing part of the point." I'm starting to think PG is intentionally missing the point. Comments similar to yours about the differences b

> "I feel like PG is missing part of the point." I'm starting to think PG is intentionally missing the point. Comments similar to yours about the differences between inequality and excessive inequality have been the leading response to the last three articles he's written on the topic, yet he only addresses it in passing, if at all. He also continues to make grand claims such as 'Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups.' without providing any form of supporting evidence. There was a subtle dig at the end of this article that some may have missed... "By definition perfect social mobility would seem unfair to anyone with a mistakenly high opinion of their abilities. Indeed, I suspect this phenomenon is already a factor in people's opinions about economic inequality even with the imperfect social mobility we have now." To give an added perspective on the implied meaning... https://twitter.com/paulg/status/672112234521231361 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/672112234521231361 Putting both together, it appears that criticism from technically minded people who haven't struck it rich just comes from insecurity about their abilities, regardless of whether they're interested in being a millionaire or not. I suspect that's why he's not listening, because he's ignoring the views of 'losers' (his term, not mine).