No, "working to reduce inequality" is most certainly NOT a noble cause. Working to increase prosperity, especially of the poorest, that is the noble cause. We

No, "working to reduce inequality" is most certainly NOT a noble cause. Working to increase prosperity, especially of the poorest, that is the noble cause. We have seen again and again that policies, programs and revolutions aimed at "reducing inequality" succeed only in increasing the misery of all and especially the poor who suffer the most from any absolute declines. Those who perpetrate such evil on mankind always seem take their failure well, resting easy on the nobility of their intentions. In their own minds, their moral rightness excuses their mathematical error. They believe output to be an independent variable, immune from effect by their policies. But far from immune, it is hypersensitive. We have known for a very very long time that the type of order that causes the prosperity of mankind to shoot skyward, enriching all in absolute terms, can also, to our moral horror, enrich some more than others. Our graphs an charts usually fail to show that it also greatly increases mobility; hardly anyone stays poor across generations. The only thing that can keep people poor are programs designed to reduce inequality. Of course, there are certain policies that do create inequalities which could be unwound without shrinking output. To name a couple: debasement of money by central banks, corporatism (cronyism + bailouts). These simply transfer wealth from poor to rich without creating any value.