>If everyone has the same indirect utility function that
is (say) logarithmic in real income, then the market's calculus
maximizes a weighted sum of individuals' utilities, with each
individual's weight being proportional to his or her income. That's
what the market does. If you don't like the distribution of wealth,
you *cannot* like the market equilibrium.
>
So, when social democracy (and a better distribution of wealth) is possible in the future, does that mean our markets won't function in equilibrium? When did market equilibria alone start determining wealth distributions?
>That seems much better to me than, say, telling Malaysians
that they cannot have steelworker jobs because that would raise
pollution levels in their rivers, or telling Ecuadorians they cannot
have electricity because coal-burning power plants raise SO2 levels
or telling Mexicans they cannot build automobiles because autoworker
jobs belong in Michigan.
>
But is it better than including externalities in your determinations of efficiency to begin with? Is it better than maximising utility with some measure other than (or in addition to) income? How does the weighted utility maximization that you describe above not basically say that the poor's interests are less important because they are poor?
Christian