> My neighbours' relative wealth has exactly no impact on my material or psychic comfort.
It does, though. First, people get unhappy when others have it better. Greed, jealousy, envy, you're not going to cure it. Second, the accumulated wealth of all those neighbours has a significant impact on the economy.
> First, people get unhappy when others have it better. Greed, jealousy, envy, you're not going to cure it.
Which is a powerful argument that their instincts are leading them away from the real problem, which is median living standards. Policy motivated in the first instance by greed, jealousy and envy often has bad outcomes! Policy should be motivated by reason, principles and evidence.
> has a significant impact on the economy
The ideal state of the world is that there are 8 billion people, we identify the one that is best at growing rice and put them in charge of growing all the rice in the world. If there is a limit to how much rice they can grow effectively, we give them control of as much rice growing as possible and then repeat with the 2nd best rice grower.
"Outsized influence" is a feature. We want unusually competent people to have unusually wide influence. You'll need a more sophisticated argument to claim that it is bad.
It does, though. First, people get unhappy when others have it better. Greed, jealousy, envy, you're not going to cure it. Second, the accumulated wealth of all those neighbours has a significant impact on the economy.