The metaphor is not the economy - it's about being told to shut up in the face on inequality. At the end of the day if I can't raise my concerns and negotiating, then I might as well be under a monarchy and we can erase all pretense about this being fair.

Well, we're talking about the economy, which is where you implied the inequality. My point is that you're making it seem to the reader that you're conflating the two things, making it seem like you're implying that the fishing is about the economy.

If you want to talk about shutting up in the face of inequality, pick a better example, or better yet, mention that you're not talking about the economy at all, even though that's the point of discussion here.

>mention that you're not talking about the economy at all, even though that's the point of discussion here.

Are you implying there is no income equality today? I don't understand your contention with my point. It's more just asking me to ignore actual data and be happy with the fact that I can buy a flat screen TV for $200.

It's seems natural that capital accumulates - and with AI this process is only going to get more concentrated; and looking backwards its clear we its only going to get worse.

Income inequality in what? The...economy, right? This is why I was confused, since you say your analogy is not about the economy, yet that's what we're talking about.

Income inequality in the economy is present, yes, but economists are not in agreement whether it's a good or bad thing, and whether redistribution of wealth would even solve it [0]:

> Despite the extensive existing literature on income inequality and economic growth, there remains considerable disagreement on the effect of inequality on economic growth. Existing literatures find either a positive or a negative relationship. In this paper, we attempt to theoretically examine that relationship with a stochastic optimal growth model. We make the disagreement clear within a single model. We conclude (i) that both are possible – that is, higher inequality can retard growth in the early stage of economic development, and can encourage growth in a near steady state, (ii) that income redistribution by high income tax does not always reduce income inequality. Income inequality can be reduced by higher income tax in a near steady state, but it cannot be reduced in the early stage of economic development, and (iii) that two government polices – rapid economic growth and low income inequality – can be achieved by low income tax in the early stage of economic development, but both cannot be achieved simultaneously in a near steady state.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02649...

---

Now if you would like to submit literature on this topic, please do, as simply talking about what seems "natural" or "clear" does not really mean anything.