I am not seeing this mentioned by other free market and quasi-free market economists, They are focusing on Angus Deaton's comments about the failures of transglobal government organizations in solving poverty. Here Deaton does seem to have a point.
But this is not why Deaton was awarded the Nobel Prize, it was more because of his data collection methods, which, surprise, measure, among other things inequality.
Paul Krugman knows just how to start to advance the understanding of this year's award to Deaton in the direction the Noble Committee was probably thinking (my highlight):
Angus Deaton has won the Nobel, which is wonderful — dogged, careful empirical work at the micro level, tracking and making sense of individual households, their choices, and why they matter...
Anyway, Deaton is also a fine writer with important things to say about political economy. Cardiff Garcia excerpts a passage in which he explains why we should care about the concentration of wealth at the top:
[T]here is a danger that the rapid growth of top incomes can become self-reinforcing through the political access that money can bring. Rules are set not in the public interest but in the interest of the rich, who use those rules to become yet richer and more influential.…To worry about these consequences of extreme inequality has nothing to do with being envious of the rich and everything to do with the fear that rapidly growing top incomes are a threat to the wellbeing of everyone else.
Bottom Line: "They" will use Deaton data to justify regulating us all "to fight inequality." The game is rigged.