Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jedimastert 1484 days ago
I'm also curious to know where you think he goes wrong, it's pretty well acknowledged at this point that economics is generally not a zero-sum game
2 comments

What is economics? Physical capital? Financial capital? Land? The human sphere of influence?

If you are generous and argue that humans help plants grow, then e.g. harvesting plants is beneficial for plants and humans and physical capital is not zero sum despite the fact that humans are intentionally killing plants and depriving them of their body.

Financial capital is zero sum, when you borrow money, you create money and debt simultaneously. Pay off all debt and you end up with zero money. Money is zero sum.

Land is zero sum. If one person owns all the land on the planet, everyone else must rent from that person or be homeless.

The human sphere of influence? I would argue that this is zero sum because a hypothetical tribe of neanderthals wouldn't be welcome in this modern world, we would never let them take over the planet, hence our domination over the planet comes at the expense of other species.

Where is all this extra money coming from, if not from someone else? Inflation - the one action that actually creates more money - accounts for a pretty small part of it.

Without creation of additional money, every dollar earned is someone else’s dollar spent.

And yes, I’ve heard theories that the commodities purchased with a dollar are worth more than that dollar, but if that were true, the item would be sold for more; a “rational” capitalist would sell it according to its actual worth.