That might be true....if we hadn't spent the previous two generations in a period of extreme wealth creation and far more equitable wealth distribution. I can

That might be true....if we hadn't spent the previous two generations in a period of extreme wealth creation and far more equitable wealth distribution. I can certainly accept a level of inequality being healthy. I see no evidence for "every reason to believe" - I actually see the opposite: We have evidence that such extreme inequality is not necessary. Even if the argument was accepted, one would have to prove such inequality truly generated 2x the wealth creation, which is an economically HUGE difference. Thirdly, comparing 1@900k, 9@100k, 90@10k (1 mill total) vs 100@10k (1/2 mill total) and you see that the difference is only there for those 10 people. Were I one of the 90 (and to be clear, I'm one of the 9 in this model) I'd not give much care for arguments that the extreme difference is worthwhile. Lastly, In addition to inequality, there's also the issue of mobility (one might defend my example by saying the 90 want the chance to be one of those 10). Social mobility has been dropping for quite a while. If you want to live the American Dream, you have notably better odds outside of America. The chance at social mobility as an incentive is not an effective argument for the point-in-time system of today. A system where it IS an effective argument doesn't have to be radically different, but it does have to be different.