>Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. That

>Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. That does not mean that “all of us need to be poor”. It does indicate that the rewards of civilisation have been unevenly distributed. What is the "right" distribution then? Given that wealth invested will grow exponentially, it seems pretty self-evident that people who invest wealth will end up with way more wealth then people who don't. Even in a very simple model where half the population invests 30% of their savings and the other invests 10%, over a few decades the former will end up massively wealthier than the latter. Similarly, if both halves invest the same amount but one is able to find investments with 10% return and the other with 2% return, the former will end up way wealthier. What's unnatural about this? Hence if we assume people have different degrees of preference for and competence at investing (there's no reason to assume these traits don't vary), we'd expect that even if everyone started from the same position some would end up way wealthier than others.