THE EVOLUTION OF CONCENTRATION. Cal Pundit did some work with the income accounts to trace where the fruits of economic expansion went. His preferred outcome: "The short answer is: everybody. Workers ought to get 30% richer, bosses ought to get 30% richer, and the poor ought to get 30% less poor. There's really no special reason that any one group should get a lion's share of the increase, is there?"

No, there's no special reason, but there are a number of reasons that might make sense. Consider a retailing innovation in the Wal-Mart manner. The owners of Wal-Mart get richer in the form of additional capital income, which shows up in the national income accounts, and the consumers of Wal-Mart get richer in the form of lower product prices, which don't. Or consider an entertainment innovation in the boy band manner. Each of ten million kids pays a dollar to watch five kids perform. The five kids, and their support staff, get richer in the form of additional labor income, which shows up in the national income accounts, and the spectators get richer in the form of previously unavailable entertainment, which doesn't. And we haven't even begun to look at more involved topics including the return to education (which potential students partake unevenly of, and potential and actual teachers haven't figured out how to appropriate more of the gains from trade to) or the role of legal and illegal immigration.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner has found several other contributors to what he calls a "roiling debate" and promises his observations Thursday.