The sun is beneficial for humanity a whole. But one side-effect is that you get skin cancer.
Alice argues that overall, we’re better off, so don’t turn the sun off: Learn to live with skin cancer.
Bob argues that maybe we can have the benefits of the sun while avoiding, curing, or reducing skin cancer. So don’t turn the sun off: Put your energies into fixing skin cancer, not complaining about the sun’s harmful rays.
Those two arguments are certainly parallel to a lot of other arguments about capitalism, poverty, and inequality. Whether they are particularly convincing is another matter. Whether there are other options is another matter. And whether Paul’s essay matches either argument is yet another.
The author ignores this, and says that economic inequality is bad, full stop. PG does a much better job than the author of making his point.
Consider the case of global warming. It's caused by CO2. But lots of things produce CO2. Some, like people and farm animals, are good. Others, like coal, are less so. Attacking CO2 production as a whole, rather than the CO2 production we can do without, is likely to lead us to make poor decisions about what sorts of CO2 we limit.
Creation of wealth is good. Concentration of wealth can result from the creation thereof. That's not a bad thing. Fighting economic inequality by limiting the creation of wealth would be asinine. That's what PG was saying, which the author went out of his way to not acknowledge.
The fundamental issue isn't economic inequality, it's poverty.
Edit: removed 'the' typo.
I'm sorry for going on a tangent. Skin cancer is a devil term like income inequality. I can't follow the argument because I don't agree with the choice of terms.