Any argument for a policy that hasn&#x27;t been tried under current conditions is &#x27;unsubstantiated&#x27;, so that isn&#x27;t s valid attack.<p>But.. I think the idea that a government would allocate the money better than Elon Musk, is indeed suspect.  The point here is that Elon Musk is an unusual person.<p>A more useful question might be - how can we optimize the number of people like Elon Musk who get to execute?<p>Moving capital to the government probably isn&#x27;t going to help with that, but concentrating money in the hands of &#x27;investors&#x27; is probably not optimal either.  In many ways they are just a lesser version of government - a bit less bureaucratic, and a bit more open, but nevertheless not the people who create new wealth.  They may have created wealth themselves in the past which is a better qualification than being a politician, but unlike Musk, who is executing himself, for the most part investors are not.<p>It seems to me that the real constraint is not on who gets to pick winners (govt vs investors), but enabling more people to take a shot.<p>From that point of view PG&#x27;s piece is doubly weird, since YC was started from this very premise.<p>Does the current kind of increasing inequality reduce the pool of people who get to take a shot or increase it?  If it reduces if then we need to change something.