[shreyansh_k]

I hear your comments and agree with your data about the 15% difference (personally, this number doesn't even matter, what matters is just the fact that there is some form of observable difference) even though I haven't verified it.

I'd like to give you a thought exercise, if you be so kind to me. I'd like for you to take that Dutch argument and replace Dutch with "human adult" and Asian with "human baby" (assume it's a booming population where babies outnumber adults) and see if your reasoning serve you well.

[cycomanic]

Seriously what sort of weird equivalence are you trying to create. Apart from the fact that it doesn't even make sense, it doesn't match in terms of scales (sure a baby is 10 times smaller, whatever that means), we are talking about the richest having 5 million times as much as the average (in the US). So your next thought experiment is "ah let's compare an adult with an individual cell"?

[shreyansh_k]

You talk about wealth (and inequality) so much yet you fail to see that food and oxygen is also a form of wealth. We, the humans, in fact, had barter system, food and oxygen before we invented money.

It's difficult to take you seriously.

[MrJohz]

I don't think that analogy works well either, given that humans often put a lot of effort into caring for human babies in order that they are able to make it to adulthood (thus achieving "equality" as per your analogy).

I think it might be easier for you to explain your point if you didn't describe it in analogy, and instead described it directly. The criticism is that large (i.e. several orders of magnitude) wealth gaps are bad for society, and that they cause tremendous power imbalances in what would otherwise be a democratic society.

Purely in terms of wealth inequality, and not through analogy, why do you disagree with this criticism?