> The man thinks that those concerned with income inequality want communist style income equality. pg's essay did not say that. I think you've misunderstood wh

> The man thinks that those concerned with income inequality want communist style income equality. pg's essay did not say that. I think you've misunderstood what he said, and are attributing views to him that are quite far away from reality. My best guess is that you've read his words with emotion and projected false beliefs onto his writing. If you genuinely care about this issue, then I advise you to go back and read the essay again with a critical, logical mind. Read the words he wrote, and consider simply those words, not what you imagine or extrapolate might be the views of the person who wrote them. Consider the actual words. PG's words do not characterize the opposition argument in this debate as being in favor of communism and "100% social equality", whatever that means. If you were to read the essay again, and attempt to connect the views you're claiming PG holds with actual words in the essay, you'd fail. PG does not characterize the opposition view as anything like how you describe. If he characterizes the opposition, it's simply as people who argue that "social inequality is bad" without stopping to think about it in more detail, and without realizing that some inequality is fair because some people are more productive than others. The other observation in his essay is that technology amplifies this difference in productivity.