3 ms·
This makes a lot of sense. What do you think of the other term often used to describe the same idea: "level playing field" ? Sure you can (inevitably so, maybe)
by tunafishman 11y ago
This makes a lot of sense. What do you think of the other term often used to describe the same idea: "level playing field" ? Sure you can (inevitably so, maybe) have unequal distributions of wealth but we at least want to rid 'systematic bias' from the list of reasons why.
- baconner 11y agoI think that is a lot better because it implies that each player has to work for it to the best of their abilities, we're just establishing fair rules for the game. There's another term I'm seeing misinterpreted earlier in the thread too that is relevant. We use mathematical distribution of income growth over the population as the metric and people misinterpret it to mean distribution of wealth in the Marxist sense. It's just a measurement of who has what, but it implies a solution (to some) that has a lot of political baggage.