# Bubble-up economics

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bubble-up-economics/466481>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 4, 2008, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bubble-up-economics/466481 "2008-10-04T21:51:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bubble-up-economics/466481/61 "2008-10-10T01:29:04Z")

</div>

> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> I want to respond to Erislover. Transfer payments always and everywhere decrease economic efficiency and make us all (at least in the short term) poorer. They cannot do otherwise, since by definition they move money from a more efficient area to an area which must be less efficient, if it is even an “economic” area at all.
> 
> This may or may not be desirable for other reasons, but economics cannot be one of them.

I dunno. Consider a progressive income tax/social security system as applied only to the retired population. There are certainly cross-transfers occurring among the elderly. But I can’t see where the efficiency loss comes in.

And as Eris points out, there’s no particular reason to believe that the initial status quo was an efficient allocation.

Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong to preferring a more equitable outcome to a less one. It’s just that preferences for societal equity cover a wide range, and there are no stemwinder arguments on the conventional left or right for any particular distribution of wealth or income (save perhaps those of Pareto and Rawls - but few are calling for a Soviet or Maoist solution anymore).

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bubble-up-economics/466481.md?page=3)