The popularity of this argument depends almost completely on who you choose for your examples. Most people seem to agree when you talk about Sergey Brin and La

The popularity of this argument depends almost completely on who you choose for your examples. Most people seem to agree when you talk about Sergey Brin and Larry Page? They started a company from nothing, added trememdous value to the world, and pocketed some big bucks for themselves. Rock on, those are the kind of guys who make you feel fine, even positive, about income inequality. Next in line come the CEOs who take over an existing company and help themselves to some of the wealth. Some of these CEOs do such a good job generating growth that most people feel fine about it (Google's still a good example - nobody seems to feel that Eric Schmidt's weath is undeserved). But Grasso's payday (what was it, $160M?) upset a lot of people. And Semel's severance package is truly bewildering to me. And lastly, we do have some of the genuinely worrisome wealth (mabye worse than the 17th century England or Saudi Arabia kind) in the US. This is what PG wrote about when he discussed the intersection of wealth and political power. For example, I heard about the CEO of a large military contractor. He was elected to the second highest office in the land, where he used his influence to start a war and destroy another country's infractructure. Later, he awarded no-bid contracts to his former company - but he refuses to say who he met with and when. We need to distinguish between good inequality and bad inequality, and there's still plenty of the bad kind out there. The key is to fight corruption, not wealth.