[achenet]

> If we want to treat the numbers as meaningful and make low effort quips about wealth inequality being bad for society when they go up then we must also concede that it is meaningfully bad for him when the numbers go down if we are to be logically consistent.

No. If wealth inequality is bad, that does not imply wealth is good.

If we simply assume inequality is the bad thing, then we could deduce that the best society would be hunter gatherers with zero wealth, and Zuck losing wealth is a good thing, because it makes society more equal.

It is therefore logically consistent to say "wealth inequality is bad and Zuck losing wealth is good".