[nicksrose7224]

While i'm on my soapbox, i dont understand this mentality that wealth creation is a positive-sum game. Me buying a property to turn it into an Airbnb that I lease out to generate money directly takes away supply from someone trying to buy a house or a similar asset.

I would love to hear some examples of wealth generation that do not take away opportunity or money directly or indirectly from other people

[edit] below commenters have some great points, i'm reconsidering my stance on this point

[biscottigelato]

Me creating a self-driving car will take away revenue from drivers. However the rest of society will gain much more than the loss that the drivers suffers. On net humanity is better off.

This is true when the computer replaced secretaries, when cars replaced the horse, when planes replaced the boats, internet replaced fax and phone calls, etc. Overall the quality of life of everyone improved even if a select few suffered each time progress was made, making even fewer rich, but everyone else better off.

You create wealth by providing value to others, value that exceeds the competition you have displaced. That's why wealth creation is a positive sum game.

[kanyethegreat]

I think it'd be more accurate to say "play the value creation game" then. The author specifically references wealth accumulation (ie. the accumulation of assets)

[andsoitis]

> I would love to hear some examples of wealth generation that do not take away opportunity or money directly or indirectly from other people

Is there more wealth in the world today than 100 years ago? More than 1000 years ago?

If so, where did it come from?

[sifar]

To explore what wealth is I recommend The Origin Of Wealth by Eric D. Beinhocker.

In essence, wealth is a process that creates low entropy.

He posits three conditions that need to be met:

All value creating economic transformations and transactions

1) Irreversibility - are thermodynamically irreversible

2) Entropy - reduce entropy locally while increasing it globally

3) Fitness - need to be fit for human purposes.

On my recent trip, I saw mountains being broken and shipped off to distant places for construction. If it goes on, within a few decades they will cease to exist. The last one tells us that we can define what wealth means - to some the mountains and the ecosystem they harbour are wealth, to some the buildings and the resulting economic activity is wealth.

[thefaux]

Arguably due to the depletion of natural resources, we actually have far less wealth today than we did 100 years ago.

[icambron]

I don’t think this is arguable. A forest of unchopped trees is only ”wealth” in the sense that all the minerals on the Moon are. It’s really potential wealth — it becomes wealth when we extract the resources. That’s why they’re resources and not just stuff. (Whether we have done a good or bad job managing the Earth’s resources is a separate matter)

[thefaux]

I am going by this definition of wealth https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wealth: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.

> It’s really potential wealth

That's like saying that potential energy doesn't count as energy. If we extract our resources to create "wealth" that prevents us from doing something substantially more valuable in the future, we didn't create wealth. We destroyed it. But collectively we have such a short term mindset that this is hard to see.

[icambron]

By that logic are we unfathomably wealthy because there are billions of planets out there teaming with resources?

Do you think people 1000 years ago felt wealthy because of their natural resources and would feel that modern times are comparatively impoverished?

What are the wealthiest countries in the world?

I don't think the usage you're proposing matches any real usage of the word.

[thefaux]

> By that logic are we unfathomably wealthy because there are billions of planets out there teaming with resources?

No, because we don't have access to those resources.

> Do you think people 1000 years ago felt wealthy because of their natural resources and would feel that modern times are comparatively impoverished?

I have no idea what people 1000 years ago felt like. I do know what it feels like to live in 2022.

> What are the wealthiest countries in the world?

I don't know.

> I don't think the usage you're proposing matches any real usage of the word.

I am being very literal with the dictionary definition. With every gallon of oil that we burn, we are destroying wealth. We are taking a material resource that has value, extracting that value and preventing it from ever being used again. You can argue that the byproduct of that extraction is more valuable than the oil, but I find that very unlikely given that technology is likely to improve over time. In other words, we should try to conserve as many natural resources as we can today because they will be even more valuable in the future when we can use them more efficiently.

[andsoitis]

> We destroyed it.

I haven't researched it, but isn't a large portion (vast majority) of lumber we use these days to build things from forests that we plant and grow?

[thefaux]

I'm not an expert on the timber industry. I'm sure that there are sustainable lumber practices, but I have no idea what the dominant sources are today. Still, tree farms are not a replacement for the old growth forests that were destroyed throughout the US. It takes hundreds of years for an old growth forest to regenerate, if ever.

[kosievdmerwe]

There's also the example of an iPhone vs piles of the exact same amount of elements making it up.

Which is more valuable? Which would you rather want?

Essentially by just rearranging matter you can create wealth.

[thefaux]

> Which is more valuable? Which would you rather want?

Today or in 50 years? I'm pretty sure an iphone in 50 years will be worthless but the raw materials that made it will probably be even more valuable than they are today.

[solresol]

This being HN, writing a piece of software to do something that hasn't been done before. That increases the total number of goods and services in the world.

Variations: synthesising a new chemical, teaching someone a new skill.

[tomhoward]

A business I'm building makes data monitoring hardware and software to help farmers/growers reduce water/fertiliser usage and prevent externalities like pesticide spray drift and grass fires. If I create "wealth" for myself from this company, it will only be because I've succeeded at helping large numbers of growers achieve the above outcomes.

I'm unaware of anyone whose money or opportunity is being reduced through this, perhaps apart from some minor reductions in turnover for fertiliser and pesticide companies.

[defrost]

Developing a green hydrogen (not blue) generation industry to expand the current hydrogen generation capacity w/out adding to fossil fuel usage.

It will take near term lithium (and other) resources away from others competing for them but will benefit more overall in the long run.

Just a local (W.Australia) example.

[nunez]

creating content that goes viral is probably a good example

yes people pay for it, but they get value from that time and money

though long term you capitalizing on a specific set of content takes away revenue from others looking to do the same, almost like a pyramid (i.e. MKBHD and Linus Tech Tips making loads of money for their reviews making it almost impossible to make a successful reviews channel, at least on YouTube. Same with the beauty vloggers like Tati), so I suppose all wealth generation approximates to positive-sum

[kjksf]

When you buy a house, for whatever reason, it opens up the opportunity for a developer to build a new house.

House building is clearly a positive-sum game that benefits everyone.

The developer makes money building houses. Furniture maker makes money making furniture. Utilities make money providing power, water and plumbing. You make money renting your AirBnB or using it as a house for your family.

[diffxx]

> House building is clearly a positive-sum game that benefits everyone.

Not so fast. For any given project, what are the associated externalities? You can't build a house without exploiting the earth's resources. You can't build furniture without chopping down trees or digging up oil. You can't harvest energy without disrupting the environment in one way or another. Your renting your house on AirBnB is extracting more money from your guests than the time value of the house. Your guest must then do something exploitative to earn the money to pay you. The chain eventually will make its way back to the extraction of natural resources. It isn't possible to turn a profit without exploitation.

Do we really not care that we have burned up an unfathomable amount of precious, irreplaceable fossil fuels to prop up our industrial economy? We should be worshipping fossil fuels, and using them as sparingly as possibly, not frivolously wasting them.

Until we have an economy that doesn't rely on unsustainable extraction, it's hard to see any form of wealth creation as positive sum.

[anthony_d]

Nothing is sustainable. The universe eventually goes cold. Are you saying anything more?

[diffxx]

> Nothing is sustainable. The universe eventually goes cold. Are you saying anything more?

Our civilization is going to collapse long before the heat death of the universe, and honestly probably within the lifespan of people living today. We could at least try and soften the blow and stop doubling down on the same mindset that created most of the existential crises that face us today.