I mean I think he’s being honest. He’s saying that he is looking at a system in which he’s literally amassed billions of dollars and doesn’t see any reason for

I mean I think he’s being honest. He’s saying that he is looking at a system in which he’s literally amassed billions of dollars and doesn’t see any reason for sudden changes. He’s just not interested in exploring how those two facts interact. What I am hopefully pointing out is that he could be doing a better job of trying to understand why people who are literally living in misery and despair might be seeking more radical change. The fact that some of his decisions may have directly let to the misery of some of those people makes this conversation complicated. It’s relevant that the greatest political problem in society right now is people hoarding vast amounts of resources, and that he’s literally doing that. Of course he doesn’t have to agree that this is in fact the greatest problem today, but he could at least note that many of the people he’s supposedly analyzing do believe this. He’s almost certainly capable of having a more nuanced discussion that recognizes his own position and perspective, but is choosing not to do that. This isn’t an academic treatise it’s a personal essay about his own subjective impressions, and he’s leaving out the most important aspect of his own lived experience. You might even call that omission intentional