A reply to Russell Okung
I&#x27;m surprised at how primitive the response to pg&#x27;s essay has been. None of it seems to respond to the central point of the essay (which is that economic inequality has many causes, and we should specifically attack the bad causes, not inequality itself).<p>In spite of all the noise, I do disagree with the central point.<p>Economic inequality may be caused by good things, but it is still bad. Wealth is opportunity and political influence. Therefore economic inequality is inequality of opportunity and political influence. Persistent intergenerational economic inequality is pretty much bad by definition.<p>Inequality - a bad thing - can be caused as a byproduct of good activity. It&#x27;s still bad. It&#x27;s a negative externality, like environmental pollution. In fact, there&#x27;s some striking parallels - a buildup of inequality, like a buildup of pollution, can trigger the collapse of the ecosystem.<p>We need to agree that inequality is categorically bad so we can have a real discussion of how to keep it under control. It would be crazy to argue that farming is good so farm-related pollution does not need to be controlled. Likewise with startups and inequality.