Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:11 pm
Since there is currently government interference in the economy, by "allow" I mean no longer interfere. If the government steps aside and doesn't interfere with the market, do you think the market has a natural tendency to correct for inequalities? And would non-interference count as a bottom-up solution?
Again. I don't understand the question because I don't understand your mental model of how you view the world. The market has a tendency to produce that which the market tends to value.
You seem to think that "the government" and 'the economy' are separate entities? In my head the "free market" roughly corresponds to global society. Together with its 8 billion people, its 200 or so governments, thousands of institutions and millions of businesses.
The free market is people doing things. Which includes "people incorporating governments and interfering in other people's affairs ". If you an others think that inequality needs fixing, then you will work towards fixing it using whatever instruments (capital, institutions, strategies).
You can try fix inequality via re-distribution of existing wealth (which is the solution people in power like a lot because it's easy)
You can ty fix inequality via creation/efficient distribution of new wealth (which is the solution people not in power prefer because it's the only they have).
There are many ways to skin a cat and I think all methods work to some degree, which is why all parties who claim to be tackling inequality ultimately move the needle in some way so they end up self-congratulating themselves for a job well done.
(bottom up) is how the world actually works. Top-down is how humans think the world OUGHT to work. It's where the "God" idea comes from - ultimate authority.