Good interview as always, Lex!<br><br>"I don't like concentrations of power economically [..] and politically. [...] Equality of outcome is unreachable and is a mistake [...]. Equality of opportunity is really really important. [...] Our [American] schools are not producing equality of opportunity." This is a narrow vision of the world; in Europe there are many countries that <i>do</i> produce equality of opportunity in terms of schooling, and yet, power is still concentrated both economically and politically. Ironically, economic and political power concentration is intertwined here, through lobby'ing, free riding, and most important: inheritance. Good schooling unequivocally helps a lot, but it is by no means a silver bullet.  <br><br>What is really missing from the argument, is the middle ground solution. Specifically, instead of concentrating on the beginning (schooling) and outcome (endgame), the third option would be to put upper and lower bounds on income. In fact, I believe this is historically sound: in the period right after world war 2, the tax rates for the upper income were close to 100% in the USA, which means that there was a practical upper bound to income. Now, obviously, the lack of regulations against lobby'ing pretty much killed that upper bound over time, but that is by no means a justification that it was a bad idea - quite the opposite if you look at the government achievements during that period. As for the lower bound, in Europe (like in the Netherlands) there are several examples of a version of a base income, which seems to work very well, and there is a lot of evidence that a universal basic income would work. Ironically, it was put up for vote in the congress by Republicans in the past, to liberalize the labor market further.<br><br>Why was this left out as an option Stephen?