Meh. I didn't write a follow up to PG's follow up because I assumed he wouldn't be receptive to my arguments and didn't want to start a war of words over a topic that has been rehashed a bajillion times. Even the economists are saying we need to reduce economic inequality if we want to avoid disaster. That's far more topical thought and information than anyone arguing on HN can bring to bear, I assume. (I really hope I am right.)

The OP article is definitely factual with its four main points-- I'd also like to add that the trick of putting yourself into the opposing position's shoes and reconstructing their argument is one of the best rhetorical techniques that exists.