[wskinner]

It doesn’t have to be symmetric. If there is $2 consumer and $4 producer surplus, both parties benefit.

And just because enrichment, as you call it, can happen other ways than exchange, does not mean it doesn’t happen via exchange too.

[dragonwriter]

If it is asymmetric, the superficially apparent mutual gain may be illusory, because—while many people think for moral or aesthetic reasons that this should not be the case—there is enormous empirical evidence that the actual experience of utility related to material position is very strongly driven by relative material position, which is often far more significant than absolute material position.

[AnimalMuppet]

But is that empirical evidence talking about peoples' overall position, or their position with respect to one particular exchange?

That is, it can be true that I feel rich or poor by comparing myself to others, not based on my absolute wealth. It can also be true that I look at any individual transaction and decide whether to make it or not based on whether it makes me better off in absolute terms.

[dragonwriter]

> But is that empirical evidence talking about peoples' overall position, or their position with respect to one particular exchange?

It's about overall position, but the outcome of every particular exchange is a change to overall position; now, if the asymmetry in exchanges were essentially random, this wouldn't matter, but when you have a system with distinguishable classes, and there is a clear relationship between class role and which side of the asymmetry of exchange you tend to fall on across exchanges—say “capital” having the greater gain and “labor” the lesser—then you can end up with a situation where the pattern of exchange, each seemingly mutually beneficial but asymmetrically so, ends up producing more disutility from increasing inequality on one side than utility from absolute gain.

[Banthum]

Parent is saying that it's better if everyone gets richer, even if some get more richer than others.

So you're saying that it would be better if everyone was poorer individually, as long as they were more equally poor?

[dragonwriter]

> So you're saying that it would be better if everyone was poorer individually, as long as they were more equally poor?

No, it's not at all that simple; there's both disutility associated with inequality and utility associated with absolute material position; how those net out is more complex than either “everyone getting more is better regardless of distribution” or “more equality is better regardless of how much per everyone gets”.

[grasshopperpurp]

>So you're saying that it would be better if everyone was poorer individually, as long as they were more equally poor?

Why are you creating this either/or? Are you proposing that if we don't allow people like Gates and the Kochs to hoard billions of dollars that everyone will be poorer individually?