> If you have an economy with opportunity, you will have inequality. It doesn't work the other way, though. As with any complex dynamic system, the relationshi

> If you have an economy with opportunity, you will have inequality. It doesn't work the other way, though. As with any complex dynamic system, the relationship between opportunity and inequality is neither unidirectional nor linear. Consider that there are two well known systems where opportunity is very low. The one you obviously had in mind is perfect enforced equality, often associated with communism[1]. The other is most commonly referred to as feudalism[2]. In other words, both very low and very high levels of inequality result in near-zero opportunity. The interesting range is in the middle - another hallmark of complex systems BTW. When most people refer to wealth inequality they mean a level beyond which opportunity is driven back down, and argument should proceed on that basis. Presenting this as "zero inequality with zero opportunity vs. non-zero amounts of both" is both counterfactual and non-constructive, to say the least. [1] No actual communist system at significant scale ever had equality as a feature. More often, the medium of exchange shifted from hard currency to some form of reputation, standing, etc. but the inequality most definitely still existed. [2] Apparently historians consider "feudal" to be a hopelessly ambiguous term. In this context "manorial" might be more accurate but nobody would recognize it.