I feel like PG is missing part of the point.<p>The problem isn&#x27;t &quot;wealth inequality&quot;.  The problem is EXTREME wealth inequality.  I&#x27;m not super rich (or even non-super rich), but I do well enough that I don&#x27;t really suffer.<p>My mother, though, she&#x27;s got a ton of debt, working a 35k&#x2F;yr job without benefits, and no real retirement plan.  Thanks to Obamacare she can buy insurance, but it has such a high deductible that it doesn&#x27;t really do anything.  She has no home, and can&#x27;t even rent because most places refuse her if she has more then 5k in debt REGARDLESS of cosigner.  And we know that she&#x27;s so much better off than some others: She has food, isn&#x27;t crippled by medical issues (yet), no one else to care for, and I&#x27;m providing a roof.<p>When you go from an extreme different between the top 1% and the bottom 10%, then have a few decades where that 1% has vast, rapid growth and the bottom 10% has things stay steady or get worse, THAT&#x27;s your problem.<p>To say that wiping out inequality will stifle innovation...well, that&#x27;s not really the discussion at hand.  Wiping out EXTREME inequality shouldn&#x27;t have that effect, because it didn&#x27;t have that effect historically.  The difference between the top and the bottom can still be quite pronounced.  If&#x2F;When we achieve that we will still have some people complaining that they can&#x27;t get their kids the latest $1k&#x2F;ea toy fad, but that&#x27;s an entirely different problem I&#x27;m willing to tolerate.<p>PG goes on to say that financiers aren&#x27;t the problem he&#x27;s talking about...but that is the problem that many others are talking about.  PG&#x27;s original essay seemed quite defensive, and this one does too.  He&#x27;s trying to convince others that he&#x27;s right, but not noticing that he seems to be talking about the impact of an entirely different discussion.