Labor and capital are much less egalitarian, not just in their inputs but in their outputs.

Let's say that I need something that humans have to provide, like if I want a massage or if I need someone to cook my food.

The more of a human element there is in providing that service, the less egalitarian it is.

Jeff Bezos probably has much better vacations than most of us, right?

Because he has lots of humans running around doing whatever he needs to do.

But if you look at the output of code and media, Jeff Bezos doesn't get to watch better movies in TV than we do.

Jeff Bezos doesn't get to even have a better computing experience.

Like Google doesn't give him some premium special Google account where his searches are better.

It's the nature of code and media output that the same product is accessible to everybody.

And it turns into a positive sun game, where if Jeff Bezos is consuming the same product as a thousand other people,

that product would be better than the version that Jeff would consume on his own.

Whereas with other products that's not true, if you look at something like buying a Rolex,

which is no longer about telling time, it's a signaling good.

It's all about showing off I have a Rolex.

That's a zero sum game.

If everybody in the world is wearing a Rolex, then people don't want to wear Rolexes anymore because they no longer signal.

It's canceled out the effect.

And so rich people do have an advantage in consuming that product.

They'll just price it up until only they can have Rolexes.

And then poor people can have Rolexes and Rolexes resume their signaling value.

But something like watching Netflix or using Google or using Facebook or YouTube,

or even frankly modern day cars, like rich people don't have better cars.

...