A reply to Russell Okung
I think the core of the issue isn&#x27;t whether economic inequality is good or bad. I think most reasonable people can agree that <i>some</i> economic inequality is good and healthy and incentivizes innovation and productivity. I think we can also agree that absolute inequality (one person with everything, and everyone else with nothing) is also a bad thing. This means that the right answer is somewhere in between, and where we draw that line is where people disagree. Holding up either side as saying &quot;inequality is bad&quot; or &quot;inequality is good&quot; is, therefore, a straw-man. No reasonable person is saying either of those things.<p>What we do have to ask ourselves is how much inequality should we tolerate in the name of progress? Would Larry and Sergei not have created Google had they made only 1&#x2F;10th of the fortunes they have today? What about 1&#x2F;100th, or 1&#x2F;5th?<p>My personal view on the subject is that that multiplier is set too high at the moment, and that society would churn out innovators just fine if there were extreme taxes at the ultra-high end of the income spectrum. I would be very surprised indeed if Larry and Sergei would have chosen to abandon their little search engine project if they only had the potential to make $100 million each.<p>I think any positions taken on this subject that don&#x27;t discuss it as a question of where to place this multiplier are disingenuous nonsense, to be perfectly frank. And this is my, and I think many people&#x27;s issue with PG&#x27;s essay: he seems to be taking the position that some types of economic inequality are good and some are bad. But it&#x27;s not <i>how</i> someone made the money that&#x27;s good or bad, it&#x27;s whether or not it&#x27;s really necessary that they have <i>that</i> much.