What are the justifications for vast economic inequality?

Most economies favor people who work hard and are intelligent enough to make a lot of money in exchange for their work and for their ideas and their creativity.

People who want to sit around on their butts and cry like babies typically complain about economic inequality, and want to level the playing field so that they can live better lives without having to exert themselves.

A perfect example of "leveling" is the social justice idiocy being perpetrated in New York City by it's idiot mayor, who wants to eliminate programs for gifted children in order to make MORE funds available for below average children.

So what he will end up accomplishing is an average, of mediocrity. The gifted children will wilt like flowers without water, and the below average are probably going to remain that way.

Look to Republican Principles and there you have it. The problem being that while this is totally in line with Darwinian theory, that introduces the concept of predator and prey. Which some Republicans may be Okay with as a principle as well. Trouble is the prey have votes, guns and families and dont see it that way. So Sharing the wealth out a little stopped them from storming the Bastille and taking off a few heads and strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.. The truth is both sides need each other to do their part, You can see what happens when the system gets out of balance.

Economic inequality will always exist since inequality belongs in human nature. Some people are more intelligent, physically fit, courageous, wise...than others.

Economic inequality reflects those differences. In my opinion, inequality is not the problem in itself, the fact that some people's income are too low and do not allow them to live a dignified life is.

It is also because it brings inefficiency. It causes social unrest, insecurity, the country is seen as a dangerous place. In the long run, talent and investors flee it. Some wealthy people in the US and France have been aware of this and have suggested higher taxes on this basis.

I read this more like "what are the justifications for [i]tolerating[/i] vast income inequality."

Some people like to use the "rising tide lifts all boats" principle - and that would be compelling, except that a sizeable part of the economic activity is competitive, where relative gains and losses matter more than absolute ones.

An example of this would be property, and housing.

The completely bullshit idea that it is the only system that works and there are no alternatives.

There is a cure, it's called getting up off your ass.

There's no justification, but there are consequences.. Namely things like:

The French Revolution
Communism
North Korea
.....
.....

Hmmmm?

The people who ask this are often the same people who cause it.

Many reasons. Like anything living, all are not born simultaneously. All are not located in good ground, in identical weather, or make identical decisions, tested by the same challenges, focus vigorously on identical things, or focus on things helpful to economic success, or can even comprehend these differences.

There is NO vast economic inequality in Scandinavia, because those countries value people more than wealth and the politicians care about people more than themselves, there is no corruption, and they don't listen to special interest, lobbying, or can be bought with money.

I think in control theory it would be close to a bang-bang controller. It's not very efficient and it can go out of control with expensive consequences.

The rich contribute more to the economy and take more risks.

Well paid goon squads to take care of people who question it...?

You have money I need money so I must take it Duh

We need justifications?

None.