The fundamental, if painfully over-simplified, difference between certain opposing economic policies....

....is basically this: imagining total available wealth as a pie, which is more important, that the pieces are getting more equal in size, even if the overall pie and thus the available pie per piece is smaller, or that the overall pie and proportionally the pieces are getting bigger, regardless of their relative sizes compared to other pieces? Which approach actually makes available more pie per piece?

For me, growth and potential matter more than forced outcome equality. (Not to be confused with equality of opportunity, about which I'm passionate)