It's true that, in principal, an efficient central bureaucracy could do a better job of allocating people's efforts. For example, the Government could be respon

It's true that, in principal, an efficient central bureaucracy could do a better job of allocating people's efforts. For example, the Government could be responsible for all R&D - and arguably this was effectively the case when the US govt paid for all those Moon missions. So... maybe bigger government + social safety net could actually lead to more efficient outcomes. Re "taking risk for pleasure": I would need to adapt my argument to start talking about corporations and not individuals, for one thing. I think it's probably more important (for economic efficiency) that large-ish corporations are compensated for taking on risk than individuals. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to not take risks without commensurate compensation. It gets complicated quickly... The key point I wanted to make was that there is a good justification for inequality, and it's about economic efficiency, not just what people think they deserve. As you have done, you can also still argue against inequality while keeping economic efficiency (by introducing concepts as social safety net, centrally planned R&D)... That's a whole other debate which unfortunately was also not really made in the article.