[batty_alex]

> That seems so simple, but man, that is SOOO complicated. Imagine a law that made life better for 80% of people, but made 20% worse off - should it be implemented? What about 2% better off, 98% worse off, but the worst off 2% amongst us benefited?

I agree with your premise that it's a hard problem, but I'd add that utilitarian arguments for policy leads to creation of bad short-term policy. Public policy should be focused on the long game of leveling societal playing fields and use short-term tools to ease suffering (stimulus, emergency aid, food stamps, etc).

> There just aren't any magical, mystical policies where everyone wins, not even things like free trade which has been great for almost everyone on the entire planet.

Again, I like your premise but I'd add that the effects of the current form of open trade is still open to historical judgement. Is it great? How does Europe and Asia feel about it?

Anyway, just wanted to add a bit of spice to this discussion - it's interesting.