re-shared four years ago, with this intro:Inequality is not only inefficient, it is immoral+Mark Thoma
constructed a compelling argument for the economic efficiency of reduced inequality. It is the clearest explanation I've ever found. It's at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/12/20/The-Great-Economic-Divide-Makes-Everyone-Poorer.aspx#page1
The moral argument for reducing inequality was best articulated by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies, a book which, incidentally, happened to be cherished and championed by Margaret Thatcher amongst other very conservative partisans. Popper argued: "from the moral point of view suffering and happiness must not be treated as symmetrical; that is to say, the promotion of happiness is in any case much less urgent than the rendering of help to those who suffer, and the attempt to prevent suffering" (Vol. 1, p. 235). Any economic distribution that denies a hungry child a bowl of rice so that someone may buy a yacht is morally suspect, to say the least.
Baking a bigger pie doesn't help if the slices are cut so unevenly that many go without while a lucky few get more than they can possibly eat. But I think everyone will agree that so long as everyone gets enough, the baker deserves an extra slice.