Aargh! the top comment here is miles better at (re)presenting the arguments of both articles than this rubbish - which seems at best to be an inarticulate rage against the idea that wealth creation should lead to rich people.
PG's original argument seems to be - We like wealth creation. We pay the price of rich people, in order to get that. Wealth creation, as well as wealth release is happening in this generation on vast scales, mediated by technology, software and startups.
Pg concludes there is not much we can do to fix the wealth inequality gap from being created in the first place. And he fails to point out there are second order fixes that can alleviate inequality if that is our goal. In other words politics has created the SV milieu over forty years, and will be instrumental in handling the Pikkety fallout.
This article seems to claim that because Candy Crush makers made hundreds of millions of dollars, that is exemplary and desirable, and the intention of pg and his Silicon Valley cabal. none of which is bourne out by the original article.
Billionaires are a symptom of the failing of a market. No one should be able to capture that much value themselves. More Startups should create more wealth, yes, but they should also prevent monopolies from other startups.
We need more "startups" in all walks of life, started by people from all walks of life (not just MIT). Because, and this is an important point briskly touched on, the ideal size of the firm is shrinking, and the traditional jobs will not be there.
PS
Has anyone else noticed that PG's essays are more and more like listening in to one half of a Socratic phone call, where the pupils questions are inferred from the half you can hear?
PG's original argument seems to be - We like wealth creation. We pay the price of rich people, in order to get that. Wealth creation, as well as wealth release is happening in this generation on vast scales, mediated by technology, software and startups.
Pg concludes there is not much we can do to fix the wealth inequality gap from being created in the first place. And he fails to point out there are second order fixes that can alleviate inequality if that is our goal. In other words politics has created the SV milieu over forty years, and will be instrumental in handling the Pikkety fallout.
This article seems to claim that because Candy Crush makers made hundreds of millions of dollars, that is exemplary and desirable, and the intention of pg and his Silicon Valley cabal. none of which is bourne out by the original article.
Billionaires are a symptom of the failing of a market. No one should be able to capture that much value themselves. More Startups should create more wealth, yes, but they should also prevent monopolies from other startups.
We need more "startups" in all walks of life, started by people from all walks of life (not just MIT). Because, and this is an important point briskly touched on, the ideal size of the firm is shrinking, and the traditional jobs will not be there.
PS Has anyone else noticed that PG's essays are more and more like listening in to one half of a Socratic phone call, where the pupils questions are inferred from the half you can hear?