I think that large income inequality has been harmful in the past because of scarcity. If a small number of people had a lot more money than the masses, it mean

I think that large income inequality has been harmful in the past because of scarcity. If a small number of people had a lot more money than the masses, it meant the masses were starving. Technology has the ability to potentially change this. It hasn't yet; it's mostly just given us the ability to play Candy Crush and look at what our friends ate for dinner while waiting in line at the store. But it will. And it's a mistake to assume that because income inequality in a world defined by scarcity causes social ills, it will necessarily do so in a post-scarcity society. Unfortunately using political influence for rent-seeking is a huge problem. I would like to believe, at least in our humble little democracy, that the masses are slowly awakening to this. At some point billionaires won't be able to use social-issue boogeymen like abortion and gay rights to convince poor people to vote against their own economic self-interest. I hope. I think that's implicit in the argument PG is making. Income inequality has always been bad in the past, but the future is not the past. There are variables that may change that.