In his post James Ahiakpor defends the vision that "governments should worry about absolute poverty rather than inequality of incomes." The arguments he uses are classic. Who would object to the rich getting richer when the poor get richer too? Simple, only sentimental researchers that play too much on emotions and jealous people that envy their wealthier fellow men. There are however more valid arguments that do justify that we pay attention to the problem of income inequality. At this point I would like to refer to the note by Branko Milanovic, "Why we all do care about inequality (but are loath to admit it)" [http://ssrn.com/abstract=530363]. In this short note Milanovic, who is chief economist of the World Bank's Development Research Group, puts forth one central remark: "The key point is that income of others enters our own utility function. And once we allow for it, inequality affects our own welfare and the arguments regarding irrelevance of inequality come to naught." In my opinion, Milanovic illustrates this view in a provocative but convincing matter. A lot of research on this point has also been performed by Richard Easterlin. A very interesting article of his in this discussion is "Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?" [Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 27 (1995) 35-47]. Jan-Frederik Abbeloos