If the wealth inequality existed without starvation and lack of life essential items, I suppose I wouldn't be so radically opposed to the concept of trickle down economics from a moral standpoint(I also have economic arguments against it, but I'm focusing on the morality right now). When roughly 85 people have the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the human population, we ought to raise our eyebrows and question the morality of the present system. Competition shouldn't exist to the extent that people are starving. With so much poverty around the world, the poorest are nearly incapable of bettering themselves to the point of massive wealth. This means that millions upon millions of people are not reaching anywhere near their full potential. They are incapable of having their most basic right, the right to peruse a better future. Furthermore, a just society is one that provides the maximum benefit for the least well off people. This present societal economic system is not doing that and thus is not morally justified or justifiable ... No matter the individual economic gains acquired from competition. Care for the people.