> What does inequality mean in this context? Everything going to the top, and nothing going to those on the bottom. > The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have

> What does inequality mean in this context? Everything going to the top, and nothing going to those on the bottom. > The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. Seems like your examples also have things going to the people at the top. A comment from a few years ago that I saved: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. > However, we also suppose that some level of inequality can lead to greater productivity, and thus greater utility overall. The question is then what level produces the best outcome? […] * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342