i don't think you understand what he was saying. You are just being overly defensive against any liberal ideology. He was saying that if it isn't that evenly di

i don't think you understand what he was saying. You are just being overly defensive against any liberal ideology. He was saying that if it isn't that evenly distributed then one actor, or maybe a few, could have large control over the markets. That is a different problem than distribution of wealth in the sense that the poor are disadvantaged. This argument is purely from a stability concern, not a concern of societal well being.