What's seems more important to me is not the degree of inwquality, but whether that inequality represents a poor distribution of resources, for example it seems

What's seems more important to me is not the degree of inwquality, but whether that inequality represents a poor distribution of resources, for example it seems ok to me that people like Larry and Sergei, or Bill Gates, are mega-rich, because they got that way by providing world-changing value to society. If the bulk of the inequality is spoken for by people like these, then I don't see a problem. If on the other hand most of the inequality comes from financial manipulation that isn't also productive to society, then we have a serious problem as the incentives are skewed towards gaming the system rather than trying to produce value. According the the Bureau of economic analysis, finance accounts for 24% of US GDP from private industry and captures 39% of the profits. What value is this providing? Learning how to create new derivatives or HFT algorithms to compete against other people doing the same thing doesn't seem to create shared prosperity in the way that curing a disease, creating Google, or making electric cars does.