>If property rights are respected by all, some small fraction of humanity will indeed become fantastically wealthy, but the vast majority would be on the tail e

>If property rights are respected by all, some small fraction of humanity will indeed become fantastically wealthy, but the vast majority would be on the tail end of a very thinly tailed distribution as humans become worthless for production - leading to quite a bit of aggregate unhappiness. The evidence suggests that adoption of market institutions boosts wages for all classes and is the most effective way to alleviate poverty: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/308134/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... I would argue this is because the sum knowledge of society is NOT accessible to any one party. Knowledge exists in a diffused pattern, across billions of individuals. The only way for the entirety of that knowledge to come to bear is for all the individuals that constitute a society to participate in market decisions, with rules that punish bad decisions with a reduction in capital and reward good ones with an increase in capital. In other words, a government will not be able to intelligently invest with anywhere near as much skill as billions of independent individuals investing their own capital. Every individual has unique knowledge about specific domains, and when empowered and incentivized to invest, will utilise that knowledge to find and invest in opportunities within these domains that the vast majority of the population would overlook. It's billions of individual investment decisions, each utilising the unique knowledge of the individual investor, that combined, can create a highly effective economy that rapidly grows and produces significant returns for the population.