I'm not invoking the naturalistic fallacy, I'm saying that without external intervention economies will tend towards a non-uniform distribution of wealth. If yo

I'm not invoking the naturalistic fallacy, I'm saying that without external intervention economies will tend towards a non-uniform distribution of wealth. If you really desired to have everyone have the same amount of wealth you'd have to continually redistribute it, at some cost. I don't know what exact scholarly literature you're referring to, but I'd guess that they're talking about local properties, i.e. starting from where we are increasing inequality would decrease growth etc. On the other hand we know from history that technological and social innovation comes for production surpluses and specialisation allowing innovation. Taxing subsistence farmers to pay scientists and philosophers is cruel, but it seems to be how societal progress comes about. If you accept that (hopefully anodyne) premise then you'll agree that starting from relative wealth equality we can (long term) increase growth and social mobility and overall wellbeing by increasing inequality.