Can't agree. Say, when a new treatment emerges for a disease that was affecting some part of the population, it's better for the cured, and not any worse for all others.
Even simpler, at the very foundation of daily life: when two people willingly exchange something, they are both better off, by their subjective measures, else they would have done that. This applies not only to exchanging goods for money, but even to exchanging friendly smiles.
If all life were a zero-sum game, the world would never progress to its current state.
All changes being worse for some does not imply zero-sum. It only implies that every individual change will always make the status quo worse for at least 1 person, not that the collective good did not outweigh the bad. Plus, this is frequently off-set by some future change being a net-improvement for the previously impacted person.
Life is not a 'zero sum game'. Just because someone benefits from something does not mean someone else is exploited or oppressed.
Many in the anti-capitalist crowd have the mindset that wealth is not created, but just spread around. If someone gets rich, it must mean others got poorer. If that were true then everyone would be getting poorer as the population grows (finite resources spread ever thinner within a growing society).
On human lifetime timescales much of life is very much so a zero sum game.
Only the exceedingly privileged cannot grasp this fact of life. Academic bubble theories don’t help a generation of rust belt manufacturing workers, but it sure as hell made a whole lot of other folks rich at their direct expense.
The same academics are happy to talk about income inequality while ignoring the elephant in the room.
Ignoring this fact is exactly how we’ve gotten to where we are today. Politicians have only just begun to exploit this blind spot so many seem to have.
I have directly benefited from this fact and have done quite well for myself. But it’s so obvious I can’t believe it’s even an argument. Comparative advantage may help their grandchildren, but it doesn’t help the 49 year old machinist with no realistic job opportunities and bills to pay after the executives ship the plant off to Mexico or China. I personally watched it happen.
Agreed. It is a zero sum game once you consider the extreme asymmetry in opportunities.
In the age of social media, it's a myth that you can 'create opportunities for yourself'. It doesn't work like that. You need the right social network; else you will create value but that value will be ignored and not integrated into the system; you will not be paid/rewarded for it.
Either you exist in a social environment where opportunities fall on your lap by the hundreds and you have to pass on 99% of them and only pursue the top 1%... or you exist in an environment where you have to work like crazy for 10 years straight to get a single mediocre opportunity and such opportunities are so rare for you that you recognize it instantly and you know you cannot pass it up.
The economy is a zero sum game at best and a negative-sum game at worst. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have such significant asymmetries in opportunities.
Just look at anyone who is earning a lot of money in our system... They're not adding value. They have shares in companies; they could sit at home all day and they'd get paid the same. How is that not proof that they're being paid for not adding value?
Ignore past stories of what these people supposedly did once-upon-a-time to get to their current positions. What do you call a system where, at any given time, most of the money flows to people who do the least amount of work and consume the most?
Probably 5% of the population could do a better job than most CEOs. Still, these people will never get the opportunity to become a CEO. There's just not enough room at the top... So people make up all sorts of nonsense stories about track records and connections.
Buy up my existing cryptocurrency shitcoin for hundreds of millions of dollars and my track record and business connections will magically appear out of nowhere. I don't need to do anything. Just a Tweet from a celebrity will do.
You're not describing a zero sum interaction because the gain in China has almost certainly outstripped the loss in the US. That's pretty much the story of globalization so far.
This is precisely the academic theory bubble talk I was referring to.
On balance no one cares that some Chinese peasants had a huge increase in quality of life. Their lives, and the lives of their children were significantly degraded so some executives and owners could get obscenely rich. If you zoom out far enough literally nothing is zero sum given the conservation of energy. But that’s a silly argument.
That it may someday be a net win for humanity (and this is entirely uncertain) is very much immaterial to anyone other than folks so disconnected from reality that they are insulated from the impact these theoretical games have on real people in their own country and communities.
> If that were true then everyone would be getting poorer as the population grows (finite resources spread ever thinner within a growing society).
Well then what is inflation?
Not everything is infinite like software. The largest sources of inflation are caused by things that have a human limitation. ie. things that need to have a human in the loop.
And lets not forget the many sources of suppressed inflation. That iPhone is its current price because we rely on low paid Chinese workers and factories destroying their local environment to produce that phone. Once that goes away (some are saying this is China's last decade of free trade) then we will see the real cost of these things.
It does mean something was manipulated though. In most cases attention and or resources. Both finite at some scale. When either is gained it does take from something else.
Can't agree. Say, when a new treatment emerges for a disease that was affecting some part of the population, it's better for the cured, and not any worse for all others.
Even simpler, at the very foundation of daily life: when two people willingly exchange something, they are both better off, by their subjective measures, else they would have done that. This applies not only to exchanging goods for money, but even to exchanging friendly smiles.
If all life were a zero-sum game, the world would never progress to its current state.