> The framing of the issue influences what conclusions one draws. Here, the authors think of the economy as a "pie" created by "factors" that gets "divided up". What naturally follows is that if some get a bigger "slice" than others, it is inherently unfair.
I don't think inherent unfairness logically follows - in many cases, this is not true (which I think is your point). However, from the ~fact that it is not always "unfair", it does not then logically follow that it is always "fair". Reality is extremely complex - clever semantics and non-comprehensive, low-dimensional perspectives (intentional or not) can easily hide the full spectrum of all that is happening. This phenomenon can be observed in many domains, from relationships to economics to geopolitics.
> But a free market economy is not a pie. It's a collection of people that create wealth. Some create more wealth than others. Bob creating more wealth than Fred does not mean that Bob took it from Fred. There's nothing unfair about Bob creating more than Fred.
At a given snapshot in time, is there not in some sense a finite pie, the makeup of which derives from an individual or organization recognizing and exploiting opportunities(!) for wealth creation that existed (but were not yet discovered) in reality? And is it not at least sometimes true that the one who happens to ~unlock this opportunity first [1] can realize a significant advantage over competitors who may have only been a few steps behind? And once dominance is established in certain categories, are there not other phenomena [2] that sometimes kick in to further expand and cement this dominance, potentially permanently?
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/firstmover.asp
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/network-effect.asp
There are many different perspectives from which one can view and evaluate reality - it is not difficult to find two perspectives that are perfectly valid (within their constrained domain), but also diametrically opposed. This norm we seem to have developed in society where an articulation of a single constrained/non-comprehensive perspective (out of a pool of many possible accurate perspectives) is broadly accepted as comprehensively true, or an evaluation of reality that is singularly sufficient for setting policy, seems not only highly flawed, but I would say getting into the realm of immorality, in that: if the one who is positing/marketing such a perspective has the intellectual capability to see the other valid and conflicting perspectives, but ~chooses not to (to the detriment of broad swaths of society)...I don't think their mother and father would be very proud of how their child is conducting themselves in society.