> think that the root of this issue is that there are basically two ways to fix inequalities: flattening out the entire system or raising those below up to the

> think that the root of this issue is that there are basically two ways to fix inequalities: flattening out the entire system or raising those below up to the same level as everyone else. The technique that has proven most successful was really the type of communist philosophy that was used by lots of these Eastern European states, and that essentially comes out to be leveling the playing system by putting everyone below where they could possibly be. Of course raising everyone up is a possibility, but as a whole it's proven extremely difficult to do. I disagree there is a binary choice. Educational system in Finland was intended to address the inequality, but in the effect it actually helped the performance. On the other hand, the U.S. with No Child Left Behind policy failed, mostly because it didn't address the inequality. I think there are two things conflated here: power and choice. We should strive for equality in power, but still give people the choice. If you have the choice, then no one puts you below. I think the fallacy here is that people actually don't need huge resources to become successful, only modest ones. So you can distribute resources equally and yet the best people won't be topped out. Contrary to popular opinion, lack of possibility to be rich wasn't the biggest obstacle in Eastern European countries. The biggest obstacle was existing bureaucracy (which actually had more power than normal people, it just wasn't expressed in money). Good innovators don't need financial incentives; they need (at least modest) access to resources and freedom. For example, this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wichterle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wichterle