Looking at it - I can't help but feel like he simply said everything he said in the original essay, except with quotes from that other guy sprinkled in. That i

Looking at it - I can't help but feel like he simply said everything he said in the original essay, except with quotes from that other guy sprinkled in. That is to say, the position hasn't changed at all. This is simply a reiteration, a response to the number of people filling HN with emotional comments on the topic. The potential problem that hasn't garnered much attention is that the issue of having a lifestyle you are not satisfied with goes far beyond the distribution of dollars. If we agree on that, then there can be room to discuss what's really bothering people. From an individualistic point of view, it is easy to say 'he has more than he knows what to do with, I'm struggling, I want some of that, just give it to me!' and anyone who says otherwise, is clearly not cool. It makes sense too. That point of view makes total sense - if someone has a billion, giving me personally a million would be real good right? Too bad there are just not enough billionaire people to make that work, not even close. So then what are we talking arguing about? The solution is elsewhere. That is to say, we have to pick our battles, we only have so much time and energy in a lifetime. Arguing about 'if we distribute it differently, I think it'd be better' back and forth if you are an economist, philosopher, or someone in a place where you can actually affect these things is totally fine. That's not the people here, so then maybe all that's happening is people venting their frustrations out on PG and if that's the case, no amount of responses is going to fix that. It's like arguing with a dude who believes the root of his problems is witchcraft. That's something each person has to fix for him/herself.