[noahth]

> Suppose a genie offers to tweak the world in one of two ways. Either he will (A) double everyone's bank account, or (B) double the amount of food in existence. Which is better for society? Clearly the answer is B, doubling the food. Option A (doubling the money) merely creates more placeholders, more tokens — while option B creates more objects of intrinsic value. In other words, A is a zero-sum change, while B is positive-sum.

This thought experiment is mistaken in almost every direction -- first of all it's not zero-sum to double every bank account given the unequal distribution of account balances. Second, and even worse for the point being made, it's wildly untrue to imagine that food is in such short supply that we need to double it. The problem with food is primarily one of distribution! This is where I gave up attempting to see his argument through. There's nothing to be gained by "reasoning" from such poor premises.