I have never said and do not support a statement that 'maybe them being poor is for the best.' You started out saying a moral person would say that the positiv

I have never said and do not support a statement that 'maybe them being poor is for the best.' You started out saying a moral person would say that the positive consequences of the gilded age were not worth its negative experiences. I disagree. You then say: "Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do." By saying this you are effectively saying that I am defending immoral behavior with the misconception that such behavior directly led unintentionally to positive consequences. I don't think that, and I'm not doing that. I'm specifically saying that removing 'robber barons' from the equation entirely removes both the positive effects and actions and the negative. The positive and negative are done by the same person, but the actions causing them were entirely different. This isn't simple, as you continue to point out (while, it seems, attempting to simplify it entirely) People want to reduce inequality - ok, how? I think that's important to figure out. What kind of inequality? Wealth or income or some other kind? What is the consequence of inequality? To find out, we need to view history as a complex thing and understand both the pleasant and unpleasant, as well as their consequences. Conflict has been a powerful tool, historically. The excesses of one group have often given rise to conflict with another group, which then created a system of greater equality. Could that have happened without the conflict? I'm not sure, I don't have many examples where that happened and a ton of examples where it didn't. There are a lot of times where people did awful things and they either didn't result in positive consequences or what was positive was not worth the loss. The Gilded Age? Probably not one of those times.