[onlyrealcuzzo]

There's several things to unpack.

Assume civilization has the perfect capacity and amount of resources to meet the basic needs (however that's defined) of all people.

Inequality here might be worse than a different civilization where we are in extreme abundance.

If one person has 99% of wealth and everyone else shares 1% - but that is still enough for everyone to have a good life - then it probably matters much less than the same amount of inequality when there's just enough resources.

So I think the amount of resources and the level of inequality matter - not just inequality in general.

Additionally, it matters what the people with most of the wealth are doing. If they're spending it mostly on orgies - that's probably not great. If they're spending it on making advances that we wouldn't otherwise invest in if things were equal - then I'd argue that's good.

All of this is going to be highly subjective based on what you think is basic needs and a good life and how much envy you have.

[dvt]

> So I think the amount of resources and the level of inequality matter - not just inequality in general.

Yep, I think I agree with this, although I've often seen stuff like "Elon Musk/Jeff Bezos/Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't have that much money. No one should."

So I think the typical anti-inequality argument has a much stronger conclusion.