meanduck

> so I don't understand how he can think we're still creating wealth.

Science??? Every major scientific invention has literally created wealth. Period.

In that article PG basically points out that income inequality has two reasons 1. wealth shifting 2. wealth creation (as in "out of thin air"). So not a semantic debate.

> He completely ignores the fact that startup funding and elite credentials are extremely limited pies.

Well these pies are private. Its up to them who do they give it to. I dont think they claim to distrubute it "fairly" unlike promises made by many democratic political parties which get naive people all hoped-up and, worse, entitled.

(Personal observation) One has finite amount of empathy. Use it wisely.

Look at this way, Some non-zero % of startups make their investors wealthy by creating wealth.

0% of "non-startups" create money. And if they do make money, they do it by ripping people off.

So yes only startups creates wealth.

> the roads and public transit infrastructure serving their headquarters, the funding for the public universities and subsidized loans for private universities from which they draw their employees

Citizens pay taxes. Citizens get infrastuctures and subsidies.

> it's that government already spent the money, and Apple (and other companies) benefited from it, and now they need to pay their share.

It does not work like that. It has to be explicitly agreed by both parties.

IMO, loading by hash and/or sign are better solution.

Also, Its very likely that the invention will be reinvented by someone. Is not there a public patent review process before a patent is granted so the other inventors can provide alternative solutions ? This would solve most if not all problems.

Only if the regulation get 90+% votes.

I am so waiting for the future when one can switch (mobocratic) government like a house.