Sure it's a hot topic, but beating up on HuffPo for being wrong on any topic is a waste of time. I didn't read this article, because I have a boycott of them (it's my personal belief that bad journalism is a big part of our problem, so I try not to give clicks to organizations whom I've sworn off), so I could be wrong. That said, I'm pretty sure the title of the article is enough for me to glean that it's not something worth breaking a boycott over.

I think the point that most people miss with inequality is that inequality per se isn't a bad thing. It can create motivations and innovations from people striven to succeed. However, what we need to be mindful of is dynamism. Some historical data suggest that when wealth becomes too concentrated that dynamism is limited, because the spending power of the middle class is limited. So the real question that we should be asking is "How do we set policy that encourages economic dynamism?" rather than "How do we reduce inequality?" Some of those policies might look similar in the short term, but much subtlety is lost when we start ragging solely on "rich people" (as in the samples I gave that were summarily dismissed in the other thread on this topic yesterday).