For instance, the World Bank is essentially an American instrument, and the United States is a food-surplus nation threatened with loss of foreign markets for farm products as modernization of European agriculture proceeds. For the World Bank to finance such institutional reforms in developing nations as would lead them toward self-sufficiency on food account would run counter to American interests. U.S. farm surpluses would become unmanageable as the overseas market for U.S. farm products dwindled. Hence, the World Bank prefers perpetuation of world poverty to the development of adequate overseas capacity to feed the peoples of developing countries.

There is a yet more subtle point to be considered. Mineral resources represent diminishing assets. It is in the interest of developing peoples to conserve such assets for their own ultimate use in manufacturing industries, as these develop within the borders of nations rich in raw materials but backward in general development. In the short run such domestic use of mineral resources is not possible because of inadequate industrial capital and consumer markets place. The specter is thus raised that in the long run these countries will find themselves depleted of resources as World Bank programs accelerate the exploitation of their mineral deposits for use by other nations.

The long-term prospect is thus for these countries to be unable to earn foreign exchange on export account sufficient to finance their required food imports. The World Bank has foreseen this. Its proposals for population limitation in these countries is a cold-blooded attempt to extort from them their mineral resources, without assuming responsibility for the sustenance of these peoples once the industrialized West has stripped them of their fuel and mineral deposits.

Consider the alternative, that World Bank loans and technical assistance foster agricultural self-sufficiency among these peoples. Assume substantial success in this endeavor in, say, a decade. Thereafter, exportation of fuels and minerals would become a matter of choice by these peoples, not a necessity. Such export might continue at current levels; it might increase, or it might diminish. The decision to conserve or to dissipate exhaustible resources would be autonomous, a matter of choice by these peoples and their governments, not something imposed upon them from outside. The decision about desirable levels of population also would be a local matter, not something demanded among the terms on which capital resources are obtained from foreign suppliers. The peoples now dependent would escape that trap. This is not intended or desired either by the World Bank or by the government of the United States and its client regimes….

Excessive industrialization in the United States, coupled with increasingly wasteful uses of resources on armaments and on personal luxuries that are essentially trivial in terms of human well-being, makes essential the U.S. exploitation of the developing countries, their resources and peoples. The United States is in deficit on raw-materials account, but is unwilling to limit its industrial expansion correspondingly. It is in surplus on farm products account, but is unwilling to limit its agriculture accordingly. The peoples of developing countries therefore are to be turned into the instrument through which the otherwise untenable U.S. economic process is perpetuated.


Michael Hudson, Super-Imperialism

jp morgan fired him for writing this stuff in the early 70s

The unstoppable TI-84 Plus: How an outdated calculator still holds a monopoly on classrooms

Electronics almost universally become cheaper over time. But with essentially a monopoly on graphing calculator usage in classrooms, Texas Instruments can charge a premium. Texas Instruments accounted for 93 percent of the U.S. graphing calculator sales from July 2013-June 2014. Casio took the other 7 percent, according to NPD data. During that period 1.6 million graphing calculators were sold, a decrease from sales of 1.67 million during July 2011-June 2012.

Immigration to Britain is good for Romania because it reduces the country’s unemployment rate, the country’s president has suggested.

Traian Băsescu said the exodus of Romanian nationals to the UK had improved his country’s balance of payments as they sent money back home.

“The reality that a part of Romanian peoples decide to find more work outside of Romania is something helping us very much – maintaining the unemployment at a reasonable rate,” he said.

He said the money sent back by Romanian workers had supported the economy, saying: “During the crisis period the remittances for Romania practically kept our foreign trade balance calibrated.”

The president said migrants from his country are not reliant on state benefits, and are determined to pay their own way in life. But they are unlikely to return until wages in Romania – which average around £420 a month – are in line with the rest of Europe.

Five Ways to Advance the Cause of Liberty

"1. Entrepreneurship, which is the fullest expression of liberty, is based on shrewdness, ingenuity, and tactical perspicacity. Political power, which is the diametric opposite of liberty, is ponderous, anachronistic, and perpetually behind the curve. Hence, a great window of opportunity to prove themselves opens up for all those who possess entrepreneurial talent – especially if it is coupled with technological talent – a window of opportunity to create solutions that allow for circumventing political power’s sphere of influence, and thus for undermining the belief in its indispensability. This is precisely how Bitcoin slowly sterilizes the power of central banks, the Internet erodes political control over the flow of information and the enforceability of “intellectual property rights”, and arbitration agencies reduce the role of legislation. In addition, the emergence of such solutions offers a clear illustration of the fact that effective entrepreneurship not only does not need political protection, but actually thrives to the extent that it is free from its influence.

2. One should use every possible opportunity to promote sound economic knowledge, which describes the process whereby individuals and their voluntary associations build their well-being on the basis of free exchange of goods and services in an environment of respect for property rights, unhampered competition, and spontaneously emerging price system. In other words, there is never too much of Bastiat and Hazlitt, be it among family members, friends, or colleagues. The more widespread this knowledge gets, and the more obvious its message becomes, the greater will be the social pressure to regain ever more areas of freedom of action understood as a precondition of personal well-being.

3. It is worthwhile to use every possible opportunity to promote the feeling of self-reliance, self-governance, and entrepreneurial initiative at the most local level possible. The goal of this activity is to bring about the greatest possible fragmentation and decentralization of all kinds of political structures, which is likely to lead to much greater economic integration of the territories under their control. This is a logical conclusion stemming from the fact that the smaller a given political organism is, the less capable it is of draining the vital forces of the local economy and hampering its spontaneous development, and the less resources it can devote to that purpose. In the most optimistic case, the ultimate culmination of such a decentralization process would be the emergence of a genuinely free and genuinely global economy composed of hundreds of thousands or even millions of independent economic zones, neighborhood associations, charter cities, and other forms of contractual, propertarian arrangements integrated through free trade and the global division of labor.

4. It is worthwhile to build in our social circles the most cosmopolitan atmosphere possible, an atmosphere that underscores the moral irrelevance of all affiliations that are not the result of a voluntary choice (including, for instance, ethnic affiliations), the moral universality of the principles of peaceful human coexistence, and the economic benefits stemming from it. It is important to bear in mind that in all likelihood it is precisely the instinctive attribution of moral meaning to ethnic affiliations that is the main driving force of oppressive political entities known as nation-states, together will all the armed conflicts that take place between them. Relegating all sentiments associated with such affiliations to purely aesthetic categories would be a very significant step on the road to initiating the decentralization processes described in the previous point, together with all their positive consequences.

5. Finally, as time and opportunities permit, it is worthwhile to engage in all kinds of charitable and philanthropic activities, especially if one can make one’s efforts in this context truly effective thanks to one’s entrepreneurial talent. The existence of such enterprises is always a clear sign for the broader community that effective help for the needy has its origin not in the will of “political authorities”, but in the grassroots efforts of free individuals and their voluntary associations, whose philanthropic initiative does not die even when the bulk of their resources is confiscated by the “authorities” in question. In other words, it is a signal showing that a consistent diminution of the influence of political power not only increases the scope of freedom of action, but also the scope of the most morally beneficial, natural consequence of this freedom, which is authentic charity.”

          — Jakub Wisniewski

In a September 11 Bloomberg article, economist Noah Smith claims that Keynes wasn’t a “ ‘socialist’ “or even a “’progressive’.” He did not favor “a command economy.”

Yes he “ was in favor of some amount of wealth redistribution and government intervention into the economy.” But “Keynesian policies are fundamentally … about economic stability, … about smoothing out the fluctuations in the economy, reducing risk for everyone concerned.”

“Stabilization theory says that you can smooth out the wrinkles of the business cycle without messing with the deep structure of how the economy works. The expectation is that if the government does just that — just that one small, minor intervention — then recessions won’t be a big problem….” To accomplish this, among other things, the government will raise interest rates when the economy is too hot and lower them when it is too cool.

So who is misrepresenting Keynes? His critics or Smith?  In the first place, Keynes himself did not recommend raising interest rates to cool off an economy. He wrote that “ The remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the boom to last.” [General Theory p. 322]. He even recommended eventually bringing interest rates down to zero and keeping them there [General Theory, pges 220-21 and 336].

Nor are Keynesian attempts to stabilize the economy through interest rates a “small, minor intervention.” They represent a price control of one of the economy’s biggest prices, the cost of credit. Today they are also accompanied by many other managed prices—most notably in world currency markets, but also in large domestic markets such as healthcare.

A market economy depends above all on free prices. All the Keynesian price controls, manipulations, and nudges just lead to boom, bust, and economic destruction, the opposite of stabilization.

Smith states that Friedrich Hayek, Keynes’s most prominent critic in the 1930’s and 1940’s, began the misrepresentation of Keynesianism. But Hayek argued that “ the more we try to secure full security by interfering with the market system, the greater the insecurity becomes,” and Hayek was right. Wilhelm Ropke put it even more succinctly: “ The more stabilization, the less stability.”

Smith also describes Greg Mankiw, a leading contemporary Keynesian and author of one of the most widely used economic textbooks, as one of “the most prominent conservative economists writing in the popular media today.” Well, Mankiw is a Republican and did serve George W. Bush as chairman of his Council of Economic Advisors. But George W. Bush is the president who enlarged government and deficits and who coined one of the most memorable oxymorons of all time when he said “ I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

Is Smith at least correct that Keynes was not in favor of a “ command economy?” Here is how Keynes described his own views on this subject:

“[I favor] … a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment” [ General Theory, p. 378].

“ State planning,…intelligence and deliberation at the center must supersede the admired disorder of the 19th century “ [ BBC broadcast, March 14, 1932].

Keynes did oppose Marxism. He regarded Soviet Communists as deranged “Methodists” [Essays in Persuasion, pg. 299, 310], but said about the Soviet five year plans: “  Let us not belittle these magnificent experiments or refuse to learn from them” [BBC Broadcast, March 14, 1932].

Keynes’s Austrian critics are not distorting him. It is the people who zealously guard his shrine, including the New York Times, Public Radio, and Wikipedia, who are doing so.

People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.
—  Jason Read
Indie, Addendum (or: why I benefit from GamerGate's opposition)

I know, I know, I said I wasn’t going to talk about GamerGate anymore. So instead: let’s talk about something else. Let’s talk about Daggerfall.


This is Daggerfall. It was the second game in the Elder Scrolls series - the sequel to the 1994 Arena and predecessor to the 1997 Battlespire

You don’t see people talking about Daggerfall much, but it had a lot of interesting concepts that set it apart from the series’ later titles. The scale was enormous - the width of Cyrodiil in Oblivion is just a bit shorter than the distance between two of Daggerfall's 15,000 towns. Dungeons were not made to be navigable - they were confusing, winding messes where there was a good chance you would have to give up without ever finding the artifact/person you were looking for. On top of this, quests were timed - waiting around to heal or getting roped into a sidequest wasn't viable, since you were only given a certain number of days to complete a mission and a good number of those would be dedicated to sleep or travel. If you failed a quest, it would reduce your reputation with factions or make the main storyline unwinnable.

Daggerfall was a game from a different era. Its production values weren’t high: it was made by twenty people, around half of them credited as just “additional art” (which in my own credits is codeword for “drew one sprite”). It was released one year after its predecessor - for comparison, I’ve been working on my 2013 Seven Day Roguelike entry for longer than that. The game was also very punishing - unless you had looked at the 100-page manual and gotten a good grasp on its mechanics, you probably weren’t going to make it out of the starting dungeon. You’d get killed by a rat.

But that’s the thing: Daggerfall was made for a certain kind of person. It came from an era where games were made for gamers. Like a child whose family could only afford one toy for Christmas, there was an expectation that the people who bought games were going to care about them. They were going to explore them, learn their nuances, use their imagination and find depth where others couldn’t. Games were meant to release their content over weeks, not hours. I once saw an interview with an early adventure game developer where he explained that, in his era, adventure games weren’t something you plowed through in one sitting - they were something you’d have to put down for a while, and think about the puzzles as you went through your day. They weren’t for a casual audience - much like Ulysses is only read by literature aficionados who care enough to dissect its nuances, games were only played by gamers.

With Daggerfall in particular, that dedication was required. It could take weeks or months of playing before you began to see the scope of the main plot. You’d have to save up hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to even speak to a Daedric Prince and get their quest. You were encouraged to do frivolous things for your own fun, like buy casual outfits for your character to wear when in town. I found this beautiful relic of a roleplaying guide, pointing out things like how you can be a “Knight of the Dragon” by wearing fullplate and refusing to attack dragonlings. It’s like watching a grown man play with dolls. It’s awesome.


At some point, games lost that. I’m not going to say games turned bad, because I love games like Skyrim - but I love them in the same way I love The Avengers or Gravity. They’re high-budget quick fun, but after a few hours they’ve shown all their cards. Developers aren’t going to put huge amounts of effort into some critical twist that comes after a month of playing because they know most of their playerbase won’t be that dedicated. And with a team of 100 people working on a game for three years, you need to target the biggest audience you can to recoup losses. A niche won’t do it.


This is how “gamers” became a demographic separate from “people who play games”. As games grew to be accessible enough that the average person could throw a few hours into them, gamers became a niche market of users who cared about games enough to explore their full depth. Mainstream games continued to rope them in with things like optional high difficulty levels or weapons that have a high skill ceiling that can only be reached after weeks of practice. Indie games, on the other hand, found a niche market that let them survive in the shadow of mainstream games: comically difficult platformers and heinously deep RPGs appealed uniquely to this demographic that wanted to care about their games. 

This is important to understand: indie games, in their earliest years, were not conceived as art. They were a business. We didn’t have these short three-hour rides showing a creative new mechanic that define indie games today: rather, we had games that survived by niche marketing to a small audience - typically gamers, since they were the only ones who would care enough to seek the game out. They were also the ones who would continue to support you - if you made a game that targeted their rare tastes, you could bet they’d be back for the sequel rather than simply moving on to the next popular FPS. Jeff Vogel has been surviving off this mentality since 1995, milking his tiny little squadron of fans - many of whom seem to remember the original Exile. In his latest blog post, he even spells it out: 

Indie is a type of business. It’s a type of funding. It’s a marketing term. In fact, the term ‘indie’ can mean everything but a type of game.

And yet, today indie has become something different. It became about art. With the internet and later Steam, niche marketing to gamers was no longer a necessity for indie devs. They could compete in a mainstream market, as long as they could keep their production expenses down. Thus, you got little games: short one-hour romps, gimmicky iPhone toys, and art games relying on the presentation of a single creative idea. You got what Vogel calls “the Indie Bubble” - this idea that the market has become completely diluted. It became a roulette game: people would make a creative thing and hope to hit it big. If you were friends with advertisers, reporters, or award judges, you could give yourself an edge.

And just like that, indies unknowingly reinvented the publisher. Success as an indie developer no longer pivoted on connecting with a niche audience, but on working your way into a group of advertisers. If the group thought your ideas were good - that they’d make a decent return - they would pay you to make games. It wasn’t about hitting the niche audience you had built or discovered, but rather about working with someone who could advertise you to the non-gamer mainstream. 

It’s what planted the seeds for “GamerGate”, and eventually this mass declaration by news sites that “gamers are dead”.

The Death of the Gamer (and why I benefit)


Imagine, for a moment, that the Coca-Cola company suddenly became very health-conscious. Obesity in America, they decided, is a big problem. That day, they announce that from now on they will be producing nothing but vegetable juice. They will now be a competitor to Campbell’s V8 Juice. Not only that, but they publicly announce that all soda-drinkers are trash, and if they want to be accepted anywhere they will need to learn about healthy eating habits. Health groups are overjoyed and commend Coca-Cola on the decision. But do you know who’s even happier about this?

Motherfucking Pepsi.

I was introduced to indie development through the Old Ways. I don’t talk about it much, but my first steps into game design came when I was copying Exile off one of my dad’s shareware disks and discovered that all its visual resources were stored externally. Summoning up my mad Kid Pix skills, I drew my own character overtop the default male fighter. When I saw him in the actual game’s party-builder screen, I was enthralled. 

I never had a game console growing up - all my money went to Very Important Legos. My introduction to gaming was through shareware games distributed by companies like Spiderweb Software or Epic MegaGames. I never grew up seeing games as something high-budget that you needed dozens of people and a publisher’s backing to produce. The biggest hurdle was that you needed this mythical device called a CD Burner that cost well over 1000 dollars - enough to buy nearly six copies of that awesome Unitron monorail I wanted for Christmas. I didn’t grow up seeing games as coming from these big companies like Nintendo or Sega, but from these smaller individuals like Jeff Vogel or Cliff Bleszinski. They didn’t put a dozen copies of their game on shelves, but rather seeded the world with free shareware to find that niche that liked their product for what it was. They could get away with making weird shit because they had us. They had gamers, who cared enough to fill out that order form. They reached out to us like friends because we were theirs, and they were ours.


"Gamers are dead" is a stupid-ass thing to say. I don’t mean "stupid" as in it’s wrong - though it is - but stupid in that it’s a self-defeating business move. 

Sure, it’s true that normal people play games. I was at a bar earlier today - to my left, a grizzled man in a Ravens jersey discussed the math behind how he was going to defeat his Fantasy Football rival, and to my right, a woman had her collection of riddle-emblazoned beer bottle caps (I helped her figure out one involving a picture of France, which I admittedly only recognized thanks to Francis the Talking France). These people probably wouldn’t consider themselves gamers, but like many other people in our culture they can enjoy the occasional game.

But at the same time, non-gamers are not the people reading gaming news sites, or buying short little art games because they won indie awards. They’re the people buying the latest popular shooter they see advertised on TV, and yelling “you cocksucking whore!” into their mic when a gamer headshots them.

Alienating gamers is a stupid-ass move. For a gaming news site, it consigns their audience to the people with the least investment in their content. For a developer of small indie games, it deprives them of the two demographics that would possibly hold them in higher regard than mainstream media - the remaining group being the notoriously broke artists. I’ve even seen an article declaring that, in addition to gamers being dead, games should no longer strive to be “fun” - and instead, developer’s primary goal should be to create games that can teach good lessons and encourage positive social behavior. The Coca-Cola-switching-to-vegetable-juice analogy runs deep. All of these people are completely fucked.


But you know who’s not fucked? I’m not fucked. The old-guard indie developers - the ones who knew how the industry worked before you could buy a game for a dollar while sitting on the toilet - are not fucked.

Let’s be honest here: when we stand up for GamerGate, we’re doing it for sites like Kotaku who don’t know how to be writers or people like Zoe Quinn and Tim Schafer who know shit all about being an indie. We’re trying to maintain an industry where these people are not automatically fucked. You ask a random person on the street if they’ve heard of Broken Age, you’re going to get nothing. When you finally find someone who says “yes”, go ahead and ask if they’re a gamer. These newbie indies don’t even realize who their audience is, and I doubt they’d last a second if their de-facto publishers ever pulled the tit from their mouth.

But you, me - the Jeff Vogels and the Rich Burlews and everyone inbetween - this doesn’t hurt us. If anything, we stand to gain from it - groups stigmatized by society become all the more likely to look up to or help those who treat them as equals. In the end, all we’re really doing with GamerGate is protecting idiots. And I mean, that’s fine! That is a just cause; nobody deserves to get hurt, even a creator who attacks their audience. But the more I think about it, the less crushed I’ll be if the opposition ultimately prevails. I’ll be sad, until I realize how much money I’ll be getting.


I ran into an old friend this week - one of the most chipper and upbeat people I had ever known. They’d had a bit too much to drink, and admitted to me that when we first became friends in high school they were being sexually abused and raped at home. It went on for years before they told someone, and even longer before it was actually taken care of.

I guess on some level it reminded me of why I originally started caring about GamerGate. I want to see Zoe Quinn at least respond to some of the more serious allegations against her. Maybe refute them, maybe apologize, but at least stop attacking people or painting them as villains for bringing it up. I want to see her friends and the gaming press acknowledge that the things they said in defense of her got pretty horrible at times.

But I don’t know if I’m actually scared. I mean, sure, I’m probably on Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun’s blacklists by now, but as someone whose work has been praised on those sites and was able to analyze the benefit incurred, I can say that it’s not that big of a deal. I mean, fuck, I’ll even show you:


Rock Paper Shotgun, after a praising review that told everyone to read my webcomic, sits down in a comfortable 10th place, making up 3.38% of my direct referral traffic since the review was posted. Ahead of it are three social media sites (Facebook, Tumblr, and Reddit), two communities I used to post in (MSPAForums, Something Awful), two art sites where I can only be linked in individuals’ journals and image descriptions (Deviantart, Furaffinity), a wiki (TVTropes), and a webcomic (Three Panel Soul). The 5000 clicks when the Rock Paper Shotgun article was first posted were nice, but the bulk of my traffic comes from communities. It comes from the people who respect me or my work, or the niches like MSPAForums or Furaffinity who it connects to specifically.

And you know who’s in a close 11th place behind Rock Paper Shotgun?

Motherfucking 4chan. A positive reputation with 4chan is worth almost as much as a glowing mention on a news site. And things that are worth even more than journalists: furries and webcomic authors. Welcome to indie.


So, yeah. GamerGate is a good thing; I want to see it succeed, gaming journalists get standards, bad people face justice, that kind of thing. But in the end we have to remember to put it in perspective: your reputation with Furaffinity is worth more than your reputation with gaming journalists. Rather than working my way into some nepotistic indie clique or standing up for some wannabe feminist icon, I’m just going to post this picture of a shirtless argonian. They can never blacklist me from cold, scaly pecs.

GamerGate failing will only make me and people like me stronger. The damage has already been done: people are offended; hundreds if not thousands of individuals are getting their gaming news from other sites and being more cautious about believing info from the big ones. A bunch of game designers have been complete assholes to their audience. And then, on the flipside of this, you’ve got me. And you’ve got the old indies. You’ve got the people who care about gamers. Not only will we will make things you love, but we think you rock.

Toss your Coke-branded vegetable juice and crack a Pepsi. This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

The UK has always been an imperialist construct, set up to protect and further the interests of the rich. There was a brief period after the Second World War when it sought to be something more. So we had the emergence of a post war consensus and the welfare state.

I was a benefactor of that consensus. I took evening classes at the local college for a pound, had my university fees paid, obtained a full student grant, and benefited from universal healthcare. For the social equivalent of me today, making this progress would be impossible without accruing a lifetime of debt and becoming no better than a slave – fuck that bullshit. All that has now gone, and the Labour Party will not be bringing it back. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were no aberrations; they were the natural progression of a movement that has ‘evolved’ from its radical roots into a centre-right focus group-driven party of power. Now, on a policy level, they chase middle England votes, while lecturing working class people on their ‘duty to vote’ (Labour), in order to ‘keep the Tories out’.

—  Brave and honest words from Irvine Welsh, taken from this article (8 Sept 2014) on Scotland, Britain, and the upcoming independence referendum.
The fundamental law of capitalism is: When workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers—not rich businesspeople—the true job creators. A thriving middle class isn’t a consequence of growth—which is what the trickle-down advocates would tell you. A thriving middle class is the source of growth and prosperity in capitalist economies.

*sigh* Is it Explain Why Grossly Oversimplified Info-graphic is Grossly Oversimplified Time again? Ah well, here it goes. Ahem: 

Once again, the social media social justice brigade has tackled a symptom instead of the disease. Repeat after me: It’s not as simple as raising minimum wage.

The disease is inflation and the lowered value of the dollar. 20 dollars could easily feed a large family 50 years ago, now it’ll barely get you a few groceries for one person. Finding sustainable sources rather than spending what we don’t have is the only way to tackle inflation, which will make any money you earn go farther without the unwanted side effect of making it harder for small businesses (the real heart of american industry) to hire people because of increased wage requirements. One possible idea (and I’m sure it has some issues I haven’t thought through, this is just off the top of my head) is to adjust minimum wage based on what a company earns. That way the laws wouldn’t hurt small businesses that want to be able to hire people but can’t afford it, while still requiring larger earners to give their employees fair wages.

Money has to come from somewhere.

We cannot just wave a magic wand and give people more money without consequences. Most businesses are going to cope with paying their employees more by raising their prices. Cost of living goes up, people will want to be paid more, and the cycle continues. Now certainly Wal-Mart can afford to pay its employees more than Frankie Joe’s pizza Palace or Mama Jane’s bakery, but Jane and Joe won’t be able to keep up with increasing minimum wage without raising their prices significantly and probably losing business to the Wal-Mart.

PS: There always has been and always will be “income inequality”. Comparing the job of a CEO of a corporation to flipping burgers like they’re essentially the same and should be paid the same way is ridiculous. I don’t care how butthurt this makes you: Some jobs are worth more than others. We will always pay doctors more than we pay taxi drivers. Scientists and astronauts will always make more than the guy who buffs your car. Get over it.