Many of today's global elite (those with enough brains, money or influence to affect the lives of large numbers of others), have become influential by doing clever things, such as inventing (or finding ways to popularise) things that make many people's lives better. However, some argue that many members of the elite—for instance, those in the financial sector—have profited from rules, whether on financial-sector bonuses or income-tax rates, that they have had a hand in deciding. And as the very rich have done far better than everyone else over the past couple of decades, inequality within countries has exploded. Should we accept, even laud, this inequality as the logical result of the greater rewards for brilliance in a globalised world? Or is it right to worry about its less savoury origins and decry its possibly disruptive consequences? This latest Economist debate has just concluded and with the world seemingly being reshaped before our eyes in the Middle East, it makes for some thought-provoking reading at a precipitous time in world history. Which side do you think won?