> this guy is so out there I can't help but wonder if it's some sort of parody that I am missing. I think you wildly misunderstood Reinhardt's simplification

> this guy is so out there I can't help but wonder if it's some sort of parody that I am missing. I think you wildly misunderstood Reinhardt's simplification to express a simple opinion. Unfortunately, your writing is very unclear and difficult to follow. Since I'm waiting for the delivery guy to bring dinner, I'll add my dim understanding of Reinhardt's post. Landsburg writes, "When Jack gains $10 and Jill loses $5, social gains increase by $5, so the policy is a good one." Reinhardt disagree that this is always "good". Society must make a value judgement about Jill's loses: if it's her last $5, is the policy still good? And if Jack is a billionaire, would that $10 gain offset Jill's suffering? He's not saying that economists never think about this problem. He's saying that economists often will make a policy recommendation (lower tax on capital, higher tax on income) that presumably raises social welfare, while skipping over the ethical issues (higher tax on the poor, lower tax on the rich). We want to pump $10 billion into the economy now. Should we give tax rebates as a % of taxes paid (more to rich, less to poor)? Or should we cut the payroll tax by a few thousand dollars (same for everyone, but more meaningful for poor)? The result is the same ($10B), but Reinhardt says there's a value judgement in the choice. This issue pops up everywhere, particularly in health care.