Okung is rebutting Silicon Valley CEO Paul Graham's piece on income inequality. I think he makes some great points regarding the ability to work hard and cultural optimism.
But I don't really see the problem with what Graham says either. Is there some veiled objectivism here that I'm missing?
Thoughts?
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/seahawks-l ... -startups/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Just a few days ago, a kick that landed wide left in the final moments of a hard-fought game against an admirable opponent sent us, the Seahawks, into the next round of the playoffs. Two teams equal in athletic ability and access, one winner.
Now, imagine if the National Football League only gave the Seahawks access to helmets and pads, for instance, and not the Vikings. Two teams equal in athletic ability no longer equal in access. I can’t help but draw parallels as I sit and reflect on this fleeting game, and how it relates to life off the field.
Last week, I stumbled upon Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham’s essay on economic inequality, which he argues is a good thing.
But for a man who has invested so much in others, Graham, your words leave me baffled: What happened to your first love? What happened to building up those people? I believe wealth has the potential to breed elitism. And I believe because of Graham’s success, he may have lost his way.
Some think working hard solves the problems of poverty and institutional oppression and the lack of social mobility. Some think that by sheer determination, one can overcome such issues.
But economic inequality isn’t the symptom; it’s the virus that attacks. You, Graham, like the rest of America, have been deceived. You are a victim of the American Dream, the belief that anyone who works hard can move up economically regardless of his or her social circumstances. American cultural optimism is one of the greatest lies ever told.
http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Economic inequality is sufficiently far from identical with the various problems that have it as a symptom that we'll probably only hit whichever of the two we aim at. If we aim at economic inequality, we won't fix these problems. So I say let's aim at the problems.
For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process. That's much more likely to work than attacking wealth in the hope that you will thereby fix poverty. [9] And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. [10]
If all you have is statistics, it seems like that's what you need to fix. But behind a broad statistical measure like economic inequality there are some things that are good and some that are bad, some that are historical trends with immense momentum and others that are random accidents. If we want to fix the world behind the statistics, we have to understand it, and focus our efforts where they'll do the most good.
