The hot buzzword making the rounds in leftist circles these days is income inequality. Local, state, or federal, not an election goes by when Americans don't hear that manipulative phrase. Amid the moral blackmail, few find the peace of mind to ask themselves if income inequality is actually bad. A new video from the always trusted Prager U says no. 

Bringing John Tamny, editor of Real Clear Markets, on hand to inject some common sense into the issue, the video explores the natural means by which the much-scorned circumstance of "income inequality" comes about. To sum up the obvious, Tamny's argument on the natural, therefore good, presence of income inequality stems from differences in human character: differences in talent, differences in desire, differences in work ethic; all correlate into some form inequality, financial or otherwise. 

In a country like the United States, you are free to pursue a path in life that you believe best suits your talents. That talent might be teaching, or making music, or banking, or starting a small business, or raising a family. Whatever it is, this freedom helps to make life enjoyable, exciting and meaningful.

But it’s also an expression of inequality. This is simply because we’re all different. We have different talents, different temperaments, different ambitions.

That’s okay because – again in a free society – we can seek out opportunities that play to our personal strengths; that distinguish us from others.

If you find what you’re really good at and work hard, you might have great success and make a lot of money. If you’re an outstanding athlete, I’ll buy a ticket to see you play. If you’re a savvy investor, I’ll give you some of my money to invest.

As long as you have the freedom to guide your own destiny, you have a chance to reach your full potential – achieving success, however you define it.

Of course, the great antagonist to this state of unprecedented freedom is the government bureaucrat, the impersonal subordinate of a dispassionate leviathan who can lean out from the cubicle and declare: "Ambition has limits," "The ceiling starts here," and lastly, "You didn't really build that." 

Tamny also explores how the much-envied disposable income of the rich eventually allows once exorbitantly expensive products to trickle down to the lower economic spheres. 

When Motorola manufactured the first one in 1983 it was the size of a brick, had a half-hour of battery life, reception was terrible, and calls were very expensive. It cost $4000. But if no one had bought that $4000 brick, there wouldn’t be a $40 cell phone today.

In the 1960’s a computer cost over a million dollars. Nowadays, thanks to billionaires like Michael Dell, we have incredibly advanced computers that cost us a few hundred dollars.

Remember what an out-of-reach luxury flat screen TV’s once were? Only the rich could afford them. Today your living room is essentially your own private cinema.

Thanks to income inequality, the rich were able to purchase these infant products at their most expensive and least efficient states, which gave companies more incentive and financial capital to explore more efficient means of producing them to expand their market reach.

So, next time you turn on your iPhone or flip open your laptop, you can thank "income inequality" for your privilege, and since people of all color enjoy these products, we sure don't mean you should "check your privilege."