>Economic growth means that society is gaining wealth in aggregate. And so long as the pie is growing, it is always possible, in principle, to allocate the gain

>Economic growth means that society is gaining wealth in aggregate. And so long as the pie is growing, it is always possible, in principle, to allocate the gains in a Pareto-efficient manner (that is, in a manner in which everybody gains) through the political process. Therefore many economists consider the "distributional" question, concern about who gets what, to be of secondary importance to their field. They would, now, wouldn't they? Since they are advisors and lackeys for the rich elites, and they get their bones from the short end of the Pareto principle...