[TeMPOraL]

Your mention about hospitals makes me wonder whether we should call the problem "resource allocation". Maybe it's an issue of resource leaks? For example, hospitals get a lot of money, objectively, but there are also whole industries that parasite on that money, by overcharging, vendor-locking, encouraging waste, and doing all the kinds of shady things competitive companies tend to do.

[groby_b]

Yes, absolutely. Any economy is ultimately about efficient resource allocation.

The question is then, how do you measure efficiency. Proponents of a more equal world argue that the current extreme imbalance is only "efficient" for a very small subset of the population, and likely inefficient both for the vast majority, and for long-term success of societies.

The long-term question is basically a result of economies being feedback loops - if benefits accrue inequally, and capital results in opportunities, any system that doesn't have some negative feedback loops ultimately will amplify the inequality more and more.

In extremis, that means one person with all the resources. I'd argue that this is an outcome that probably nobody wants.

And in the context of OP: unless the total cake grows faster than the inequality, this holds true for non-zero-sum games, too.

The world has experienced tremendous growth in the past. It doesn't right now (and it can't sustainably continue growth in many areas), so the question is, what feedback loops do we want in place.

[clairity]

yes, that's a principle line of criticism of (crony) capitalism, that the efficient allocation condition no longer holds. greater wealth concentration enables greater distortions, and ultimately to the destruction, of free and fair markets that are the crux of capitalism.

[wizzwizz4]

When people defend capitalism online, they're usually defending crony capitalism – mostly because they're trying to defend capitalism against people criticising it, but don't know what capitalism is (other than that it's good).