Extremes of inequality are among the most morally troubling realities of contemporary society because they defy our belief, or our wish to believe, that the social order is basically fair. Of course, wealth and poverty pose different challenges. Wealth troubles us less. Indeed, we are normally fascinated by the spectacle of way too much, and unless there is clear evidence that it is paid for by somebody’s way too little, the moral problem is hard to discern. So, inequality on the fat end of the spectrum is more likely admired than deplored, and “the rich” benefit from a media culture that typically bows before even lavish accumulation as a sign that the system is working, not that it is failing.
That said, great wealth still needs defending. Today’s colossal fortunes, generally the prod- uct of either the financialization of the economy or the digitization of the society, are so new that time has not yet dusted them with the respectability of age. Plus, they are so big. It is not hard to argue that pluck and vision should be rewarded, but it is not easy to explain why society should part with so many billions in incentive pay when much the same entrepreneur- ial heroism could be induced for a fraction of that. It is not that wealth of that magnitude is unearned, it is that it is unearnable: Nobody creates value on that scale. Nobody deserves that much money.