Is hand-wringing over inequality a misplaced concern?

In my view, it is. Mine is a minority position, which may be a sign that I am incorrect. But I haven't been able to figure out what the irreconcilable differences are.

I want to see people prosper, especially the poor. I think most people agree with this.

I am opposed to coercion, unless there is strong justification for it. I think people agree with this too.

The old saw is "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." People sometimes hint at this, but they don't back it up. Articles like this show that today's poor in the United States are doing much better than they did in the past. The poor are getting richer. A lot of poor in this country immigrated from other countries, where they were even poorer.

People suggest that the rich got their wealth by taking it from the poor. That strikes me as an odd explanation, but there is some truth in it. Most of the people wealthy enough to be famous got their money by creating things that millions of people, including the poor, enjoy and are willing to trade their money for. Rihanna enriches the masses with music while she enriches herself with money.

Pundits sometimes use tortured logic to make the case against inequality. This doesn't mean a stronger argument can't be made, but I don't see much scrutiny of this sacred cow.

People often point out that inequality messes up politics. I think that's a fair point against politics. It's not realistic to expect a dog to walk past a steak, and it's not realistic to expect wealthy people to refrain from trying to influence the power concentrated in government, or the human beings trusted with power to always resist influence.

If these links haven't exhausted your patience, I have a favorite screed about oxygen.

If you only get a little rich providing oxygen, is that okay? At what point do you cross a line and meet too many peoples' needs, make too many lives better, and become a reviled capitalist?