[hippira]

I want to chip in here and say that accouting for limited resources in an economic model is definitely useful, because the negate ( not accounting for limited resources ) has led to the environmental disaster that we find ourselves in right now.

[incongruity]

That’s an eminently reasonable proposition but that is far far from insisting on dogmatic application of a zero-sum rule where it demonstrably does not apply.

One of the most interesting proofs of this is the measurable change in the Earth’s albedo due to climate change (and the downward spiral that creates). If we can demonstrate notable changes in how much energy is retained or lost, globally, that destroys the notion of this being a closed system. Similarly, the sun itself is known to be variable in its total energy output so there is no reasonable assurance of a constant amount of energy into or out of our global system. We can’t really control how much energy is produced but it is false to assert that all energy is used as well - there is notable margin for good or for bad here - and because of that, the zero-sum claim is just silly.

[neonological]

What confuses people is the fact that for many things if energy isn’t used it is actually completely lost, hence people believe that this “lost” energy constitutes a possible unlimited potential supply. Sure it can constitute such a thing if you can find a way to utilize this lost energy. Currently there’s no way to utilize hence it’s not a factor.

Ephemeral supply and wasted energy only limits supply even further. Here’s a very simple way to think about it that gets rid of the associated complexities :

The fact that you pay for energy and the fact that energy outages can occur when usage exceeds supply means that energy is limited and therefore zero sum. In fact the attempt to try to reason your way to another conclusion is the silly endeavor.

The economy is zero sum because the actual key measurement of all economic goods is the lowering of entropy which is directly done by energy utilization which is directly limited.

[malandrew]

The economy is a concept that exists strictly on Earth (until someone like Musk colonizes Mars). A huge portion of our energy comes from the Sun both in the form of plant matter from agriculture and from solar power as we increasingly build solar panels to harvest the Sun's energy. The simple fact that we can take this exogenous source of energy and feed it into our economy to grow it means that yes, it's zero sum if you consider the Universe, but from the perspective of the economy here on Planet Earth, that economy getting energy for free and grow in excess of your zero sum thinking.

[neonological]

No. First off net useable energy is constantly decreasing in the universe. Entropy will always increase until all energy available for use in the universe is zero. The universe is not a zero sum game. It is negative and in the end everyone loses.

The earth receives energy from the sun at a limited rate. The limit on the rate and limits on our technology in order to extract this energy functions as a practical limit.

Zero sum games are used colloquially in the context of transactional games. When a resource is limited in this context the game is zero sum. Someone loses during the creation and exchange of an economic product.

The context of increasing technology or resource discovery is separate from this topic and not what people mean when they say the economy is “not zero sum”. People are referring to the transaction and creation of said economic product and the economic actors in the economy at the current point in time. What they mean is a “transaction” in the game where I trade you an extra pizza for your extra shoe results in both of us receiving a net gain. My claim is that this transaction does not result in a net gain because both products are tied to a limited resource whether it be material or energy. You took a piece of the energy pie now someone else has no pie.

[incongruity]

This is some time cube level self rationalizing wackiness. Seriously - If energy is lost, that contradicts your previous claims.

You like you use language reminiscent of thermodynamics but you seem to suffer significant misapprehension of the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy is never lost in a universal sense or within a closed system. So, for you to say energy is lost if not used is either a violation of the laws of thermodynamics or admission that the earth’s ecosystem and all human endeavors therein are not a closed system. Just as energy can be lost from that system, it can be added from external sources (primarily the sun). So for any resource/bit of energy, unlike your previous statements, either I use it, you or anyone else not me uses it, or it’s lost to waste/eventually leaked from the system or it’s stored and used later (or likely some combination of all four of those). If it were zero-sum, it would be 1&2 only and no energy would ever be added to the system. That’s not the case for earth and human endeavors.

[neonological]

Your first sentence is a rude insult. There’s no need for that on HN.

I’m using entropy in terms of statistical mechanics. Probability is the more viable explanation for entropy, not some random thermodynamic law. Those laws are archaic explanations of what entropy is.

I’m also not talking about just energy. I’m talking about available energy. Energy can’t be created or destroyed but it can increase in entropy and become unusable and unavailable.

The limit I’m referring to here is rate of available energy. Energy on the earth is constantly being rendered unusable through entropy increasing naturally or through the transfer of low entropy from energy to low entropy economic products. Energy is also being replenished by the sun at a fixed rate.

The usage rate and replenishment rate form an effective limit on aggregate available energy as a limited rate, making its rate of usage in an economic transaction effectively capped and therefore zero sum by definition.

There’s no time cube antics here that’s just rude. The real antic here is how you can think that people can just play the economic game and continuously benefit from repeated transactions to infinite without any actual physical price that was paid. Physical limits exist and that is not wackiness... that is common sense. Although, your reply that will follow this statement will be 100% wackiness if you want any chance at vindicating yourself.