Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

The first two are complicated, because they are extremely political. To own geographic space is entirely divisive from owning just the dirt under a house, or the physical material that composes it. To own an idea, a trademark or a patent, is to assign exclusivity to thoughts. Its much easier to say "we have scarce goods, so those that create them can sell them, and the buyer owns it". Its why I think goods property is a good thing, but our attempts to strong arm real estate and IP into the same formula is a cause of constant economic tension because they aren't a good fit.

Just in this context for reference, I'm an IP abolitionist and think we should adopt homesteading of property again. Both forms of state granted monopoly to space and idea are being rampantly exploited by market forces and were conceived of in an age when technology did not enable the information exchange we have today. It would have been much more complicated to verify usage of a plot of land a hundred years ago than it would now, to know who previously owned it and for how long it has been unused before you could claim it as your own.

> This is the problem.

That is a very good way to put it. I agree with that.

> So why doesn't Graham recognize and advocate this?

He doesn't advocate because it won't help his cause. As I posted in the comment of the original article (which got downvoted, nobody likes pg being accused of manufacturing pr? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10827175, hey! it's a submarine ;-).

He created a strawman and a narative around how to interpret and think about income inequality to give his followers and those involved in startups a framework. He understands he is part of what can create inequality, and that's bothersome to him and those around the startup culture. Startup environment needs myths to operate. These are promises to investors, promises to early employees, these are things founders are supposed to be telling others ("I want to make the world a better place") and perhaps themselves as well. There has to be a myth created that addressed income inequality, because it is talked about in the media.

As a joke, someone wrote (and I forgot who) how the wealthy and powerful in this country are devout Marxist followers. They internalize the rules and assumptions of the class struggle. Except they don't identify with the working class, they identify with the bourgeoisie. They understand there are the two classes and what class they belong to. They will actively try to control and supress the lower classes.

No. Wealth is a symptom of a system where the winner takes all and the winner is increasingly technologically based companies.

Wealth allow you to increasingly affect the political process but only as a function of you being rich to begin with. No one starts with the political system to gain wealth at least they wont' be wealthy for very long if thats how they came to their wealth.

Income inequality is increasingly a symptom of systems with little friction to become the first or second in a field but a lot of friction to challenge them.

Which, I think, is the central issue regarding property rights and inequality. We should question all rent generating property rights, just as Locke did, and try to find a system of propert rights where rent doesn't create inequality.

Taxation seems to be he popular approach, but why not try to redefine the rights all together? What if such property rights were time limited, and came with a fee equal to the rent potential?