Mozart, Salieri, and Lincolao.

Miloš Forman, in his film Amadeus (1984), portrays the composer Antonio Salieri, who feels a fierce envy of Mozart and, instead of trying to surpass him with his own talent, dedicates his efforts to scheming to ruin Mozart's reputation. Antonio's actions neither improved his own musical quality nor that of other composers, but only lowered the overall standard by stifling Mozart's creativity. The lesson is clear: weakening the best does not elevate the level of the rest; it only lowers the overall standard. Inequality is often addressed analogously to musical talent, as a problem of "ceiling height," focusing efforts on answering the question of how much is concentrated at the top of the distribution, and forgetting that the focus for achieving progress should be on raising the floor. The metaphor is simple: lowering the ceiling—through taxes, restrictions, or costs—will change indicators of inequality, but it will not raise the floor. In fact, if these measures affect investment, human capital accumulation, or productivity, they will limit opportunities for the most vulnerable. Conversely, policies focused on growth, competition, or educational quality are associated with a higher quality of life, even where inequality persists. Evidence supports this distinction. Studies by the World Bank show that countries with sustained GDP per capita growth experience faster reductions in poverty, even with limited changes in inequality. OECD reports indicate that in economies with dynamic labor markets and effective education systems, the probability that a person born in the lowest quintile will reach middle or high incomes is much higher, regardless of the level of inequality. In Chile, although income inequality remains relatively high, poverty has fallen dramatically in recent decades, during periods of greater economic expansion. The statements by Minister Lincolao, who said that poverty was "a gift" in her career, are very relevant because her experience suggests that overcoming poverty depends not only on redistribution, but also on environments that allow for the development of capabilities. The fact that it was the United States, and not Chile, that allowed her professional breakthrough should be the focus of the discussion. Focusing solely on redistribution through taxes and transfers risks neglecting the determinants of mobility: the quality of education, access to networks, financing, pro-competition regulation, and openness to innovation. Without these factors, reducing inequality will be temporary or merely a matter of accounting. The discussion should be about how to address inequality without sacrificing growth. Raising the floor requires expanding opportunities, not just reconfiguring distributions. If Chile confuses these two objectives, it may end up with a lower ceiling and a stagnant floor. In that scenario, the promise of social progress loses its foundation and becomes an empty declaration. By Macarena García, Senior Economist at LyDNEWSLETTEROpinionSaturday, AMConflicting ideas, contrasting perspectives, and a clear analysis: elements to reveal the issues that divide opinions and will shape the agenda. By subscribing, you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policies of La Tercera.