That is the core of the Rawlsian view, and it is one of the most influential arguments in political philosophy.

Rawls’s Difference Principle

John Rawls argued in A Theory of Justice that inequalities in income and wealth are justified only if they are arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

In simplified form:

Inequality is acceptable if it makes the worst-off better off than they would be under a more equal alternative.

This means the moral focus is not on whether some people become extremely rich, but on whether those at the bottom are materially better off.

Why Some Economists Agree

A Rawlsian or broadly consequentialist perspective would say that if:

• The poorest households have rising living standards,
• Basic needs are met,
• Opportunity is widely available,
• Public goods are well funded,

then the existence of billionaires is not inherently problematic.

Under this view, what matters most is:

• Poverty rates,
• Health outcomes,
• Educational attainment,
• Social mobility,
• Security and dignity.

The Case for Tolerating Large Fortunes

Supporters of this view argue that substantial rewards can:

• Encourage innovation,
• Mobilize capital,
• Incentivize entrepreneurship.

For example, if innovations from firms like Microsoft or Amazon create large consumer benefits and employment, resulting wealth concentration may be seen as an acceptable byproduct.

Important Rawlsian Constraints

Rawls did not defend unlimited inequality.

He insisted that society must also preserve:

1. Equal basic liberties.
2. Fair equality of opportunity.
3. Institutions that protect the least advantaged.

If concentrated wealth undermines political equality or opportunity, then it becomes inconsistent with Rawls’s principles.

Critiques of the “Only Absolute Poverty Matters” View

Many critics argue that relative inequality matters even when absolute poverty falls.

Political Influence

Large fortunes can translate into outsized influence over media, lobbying, and policy.

Reduced Social Mobility

Wealth can buy superior education, networks, and opportunities.

Rent Extraction

Some fortunes grow through monopoly power or regulatory capture rather than productive innovation.

Social Fragmentation

Large disparities can weaken trust and social cohesion.

Intergenerational Persistence

Inherited wealth may entrench class divisions.

Rawls vs Pure Sufficiency

The statement: as long as no one is poor, inequality does not matter is more permissive than Rawls’s position.

Rawls asks whether institutions maximize the prospects of the least advantaged, not merely whether they keep them above a minimum threshold.

If a more equal arrangement would improve the situation of the worst-off, Rawls would favor it.

Practical Examples

• United States has generated immense wealth but also high inequality and lower mobility than many peer nations.
• Belgium and Australia combine strong living standards with broader household asset ownership.

The key question is not whether elites are becoming richer, but whether their gains are associated with durable improvements for those at the bottom.

Empirical Reality

In many countries, periods of rising inequality have coincided with:

• Stagnant median wages,
• Higher housing costs,
• Reduced mobility,
• Greater political polarization.

In such cases, concentration may not satisfy Rawls’s test.

Bottom Line

Rawls provides a powerful justification for accepting inequality when it genuinely improves the lives of the least advantaged.

But his theory does not imply that any degree of wealth concentration is harmless.

The relevant questions are:

1. Are the least advantaged doing as well as possible?
2. Is opportunity genuinely fair?
3. Does concentrated wealth distort politics and institutions?
4. Are gains driven by productive activity rather than rent extraction?

If the answer to these questions is yes, inequality can be justified. If not, wealth concentration becomes a serious concern even when absolute poverty is low.