There are theoretical and practical arguments for inequality. The theoretical arguments often go something like this: Does it matter if some people have mansions, if everyone else has decent houses? I think we can discard this argument as largely irrelevant to the world we live in, because not everyone has decent houses.  To discuss inequality while ignoring the crushing poverty in the world seems hollow and callous.

The more practical discussion revolves around whether the rich the cause of poverty or the cure. The argument for them being the cure, goes something like this: You let a few individuals get very, very rich, and they then become entrepreneurs in society, creating businesses, jobs, and distributing wealth. The argument against this is that you let a few individuals get very, very rich, and suddenly you slip into oligarchy, where they use their resources to slant the economy and politics of the society in the favour of greater wealth creation and away from more equality.  Equality for the elites reduces profits by driving up wages, demotivates workers who become choosy about their work, and generally undermines levels of elite power and social status.

Personally, I lean largely towards the second half of this equation, so I was interested to listen to this discussion about the history of the rise and fall of inequality. I think you will find it fascinating and important. The end goal for me, is that only collective action can reduce levels of inequality.  Whatever temporary adjustments in inequality happen, will soon be swallowed up by the workings of the market and the Matthew principle.  I'd be interested to see what you think.