For me this seems more useful as an implication in the other direction: economists generally treat utility functions as isoelastic[1], which implies that opportunities are Pareto-distributed.
But it’s also useful as a sanity check: it’s intuitive to me that utility is isoelastic, and also that opportunities are Pareto-distributed, so it’s nice that these two intuitions are consistent with each other.
[1] Although this might be more out of convenience than anything else, since isoelastic utility functions have some nice mathematical properties.
For me this seems more useful as an implication in the other direction: economists generally treat utility functions as isoelastic[1], which implies that opportunities are Pareto-distributed.
But it’s also useful as a sanity check: it’s intuitive to me that utility is isoelastic, and also that opportunities are Pareto-distributed, so it’s nice that these two intuitions are consistent with each other.
[1] Although this might be more out of convenience than anything else, since isoelastic utility functions have some nice mathematical properties.