zlacker

Nitpick, but important: saying "wealth redistribution (from the bottom to the top)" implies there's a fixed amount of wealth, like a pie, and the "top" are getting a bigger and bigger slice. A lot of people actually think like this, and it's incorrect.

It's more correct to think of e.g. Carlos or Elon as leading efforts to bake lots and lots more pie, and then keeping a lot of the pie for themselves. The dominant theme is that they're creating value that didn't exist before, not taking a larger proportion of already-existing value.

>>NoImma+(OP)
Not true. The people in the middle expand the pie, the people at the top (the 1% of the 1%) eat it. And the people at the bottom are indeed having a harder and harder time.

>>NoImma+(OP)
If you look at the 2020 data, the last time I checked, that's not what happened.

>>paledo+a6
I hear what you're saying, and I think it hinges on how you assign credit for making more pie. Did the employee make the pie, or did the person choosing deploying the capital that particular way make the pie?

In any case, the point I think is important, and which I wanted to make, is "more pie, not dividing up the same pie" which works with both our stories.

Edit: oh, and I think it's probably not true that the people at the bottom are having a "harder and harder time". It of course would depend on which metrics you pick, but I generally understand that sort of sentiment as popular in the media but wrong in a Better-Angels-of-our-Nature kind of way. I could believe that people at the bottom are getting a smaller share percentage-wise, but the actual amount of pie they're getting is growing. People are living longer, healthier lives, there's less food insecurity, etc.