>"His argument was that technology is the creator of inequality and it can't be stopped." Not quite. The argument was that technology is a lever that multiplie

>"His argument was that technology is the creator of inequality and it can't be stopped." Not quite. The argument was that technology is a lever that multiplies the differences in productivity between us, not that it is the creator of it. >"That startups (and stock options) capture a lot of that wealth is a side effect." Businesses generally capture this wealth. PG has argued in many essays that start-ups are a great path for the most productive of workers to capture the value of their contributions rather than cede them to existing business areas. >However the counter to the capitalist thesis the most direct way to address inequality is taxation But is this really what we want? Do we want to broadly discourage all wealth creation at the same time? Or would it make more sense to focus on the non-productive drivers of inequality, rent-seeking behavior etc? The essay suggested (quite accurately) that actual taxation rate doesn't change much due to tax avoidance issues. Even now, we have what appears to be a very progressive system on the surface. But due to its complexity and many, many loopholes, those with more income pay a lower rate than average in practice. Simply declaring a top tax rate of 90% wouldn't stop this and hasn't in the past.