Studies have shown that inequality is intrinsically harmful because people care about their relative status in the economic order. Richard Wilkinson has argued that vast economic inequality can alter the makeup of a country's social relationships, inducing stress, anguish, and ultimately poor health. Bad news all around. So even if the rising tide is lifting all boats, we should still do everything we can to reduce inequality, no? Well, no, says Will Wilkinson, we should just get people to care less:

My relative success has no "polluting" effect whatsoever if you don't care about it. (You're a good Buddhist, say.) The "pollution" is a joint product of my move up and your preference to not move down. The correct approach to the problem, if there is a problem at all, depends on what the lowest cost solution happens to be. If you changing your preference is cheaper than taxing me, then you ought to change your preference.

Well here's the low-cost solution. Those who control the means of production should just come up with some sort of... distraction mechanism... yes, to get those who fret about being on the bottom of the totem pole to fret no more. Some sort of "opiate," we'll call it, delivered to the masses. Perhaps in pill form. Now since the poor in Europe seem to care more about inequality than the poor in the United States, that just means that the European ruling classes haven't yet perfected the false consciousness technique yet. What's the matter with Kansas? Don't worry about it, pop another Soma. No, I don't know. Read Will's post, it's interesting.