Circling the cave where the economic secret lies

I wonder if the various ways proposed to fix inequality in the world can be correlated with the levels of intelligence, courage and compassion of the people who suggest the ways? I think it may line up in the following way, from the least to the most intelligent, courageous and compassionate:

Progressive leaders believe that all people of the world have the same average intelligence, and the way to fix inequality is to have Big Government create programs that create equality.

Paleoconservatives believe Big Government destroys economic production, with such things as the Fed policy of dropping interest rates to zero, causing the rich to put their money in the stock market, which then only widens inequality, therefore the conservatives want to help the middle and lower classes by greatly reducing the size of Big Government.

A few professors, such as Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, have shown that global inequality can be explained by national IQ's, that is, differences in intelligence are based on small genetic differences between populations, which relates to global inequality of conditions, so it will be virtually impossible to equalize differences. Lynn and Vanhanen propose such things as improving the quality of nutrition for pregnant women and infants, because IQ is also related to early nutrition.

And finally we have one or two people, like psychologist Raymond Cattell, who would initiate programs for improving the genetic qualities of people, poor and rich.

Why does it take courage to suggest these things? Because the political correctness of cultural Marxism that now rules the academic world and the big media virtually crucifies or ruins the career any person who mentions the diversity of intelligence.

Cattell's suggestions, which I think ultimately took the most courage, intelligence and compassion, have been buried even deeper than Lynn and Vanhannen's. And the paleoconservatives have been buried by the neoconservatives, who agree with most of the suggestions of the progressives, and they show the least intelligence, courage or compassion for the people, although deviousness and double-dealing requires a kind of intelligence.