There is a lot of talk, from time to time, about the fairness of various salaries.
Imagine what you'd like the distribution of wealth to be:
Now imagine that you've managed to elect a government which can enforce this distribution.
Now suppose that Kevin Pietersen is playing in a cricket match, and charges £1 to watch it.
Suppose 100 000 people turn up.
Everyone is happier as a result.
KP is £100 000 richer, and has presumably enjoyed his cricket match.
Those watching have had a nice day out. They chose to pay £1, and would presumably choose to do it again. They are unlikely to miss their £1.
So, since everyone is happier, how can this new distribution be less fair than the original?
This argument is known as the Wilt Chamberlain Argument, after a famous baseball player.
I'm not sure what it shows.
Things it might show are:
There is no optimal distribution of wealth, because given any distribution where 100 000 people are able to pay £1 to watch a day's cricket, we can think of a better one.
The optimal distribution of wealth is where KP has all the money, and no one else can afford £1 to watch him play.