How People Get Rich Now

> And there's a reason why: these are mostly companies that win by having better technology, rather than just a CEO who's really driven and good at making deals.

Really? Always? Are we sure that some companies [which are funded by giants like softbank and have names that rhyme with schmuber] don't [at least] sometimes win because of massive capital injections which allow them to subsidize consumer-facing pricing and stomp all over the competition? Having "better technology" wouldn't allow you to beat uber, you'd also need to subsidize rides for years to choke out uber on pricing. This is true for a lot of big modern companies - they can leverage their capital to crush early competition and wait till they're the only game in town to raise prices and cover their costs (or hope that economies of scale will catch up). I realize that PG isn't saying this _doesn't_ happen, just seems like he's painting a glossy "it's because meritocracy and innovation" picture over things that often have a lot more to do with simply having access to insane amounts of capital (i.e. being good at making deals)

> Of course the Gini coefficient is increasing. With more people starting more valuable companies, how could it not be?

I think this is a really deceptive statement - it kinda sounds like "more people are getting rich" when in fact fewer people are getting [even] richer. The details of _who_ is getting richer are interesting and I think well covered by this post (and I'm not arguing that), I just have a personal beef with the presentation that maybe it's somehow OK (or good?) that income inequality is getting worse because... tech?

A reframing of this story about how the combination of tech & the modern world of VC enables the ultra-wealthy to more effectively concentrate and grow their wealth (even if sometimes a startup founder gets to win the lottery and join the club) could be just as factually correct and a little less rosy.

It seems to be very compelling. Most people spend more energy writing about, worrying about, or praising Bezos, Musk, and Gates than they do the rest of the top 0.1% richest people combined. Perhaps it's not a good argument. But it's compelling.

Its interesting to note that many of our own prized meritocratic examples owe their parents in terms of intellectual inheritance or first-round funding.

I believe Trump's father (a billionaire in 2018 dollars) was given start up capital by his father who owned a diner in gold territory during the rush. Elon Musk I believe also was the beneficiary of a small amount of investment from his parents.

The question is whether or not that "counts". It certainly counts when discussing disparate outcomes between demographic groups when discussing success/failure with broad brush strokes but probably doesn't when comparing aristocratic-like inheritances to startup wealth.