|
|
|
|
|
by bglusman
330 days ago
|
|
So, OK, yes some specific assets are zero sum when defined narrowly…. But take Picassos. Well, ok, he’s been dead for 52 years, so sure, he’s not painting any more, but… he did… his paintings weren’t zero sum while he was alive, he created them and increased supply steadily during his life. Real estate is the classic example, true, but precious metals? They’re zero sum in one sense, but what do you think mining does? It increases the supply and effectively amount of precious metals in the world. Same for drilling for oil I guess, though I don’t really want to defend of encourage that, but, it’s still not exactly zero sum, even if I don’t like it, because you can’t just count wealth that’s inaccessible as equivalent to wealth that is accessible. So 3 of your 4 examples are perfect examples that wealth is NOT really zero sum at all. And you can’t eat those. So what about food? Food production has been increased… what, 500x maybe in the last 100 years via agricultural technology investment and science. That’s a lot fewer people starving or going hungry… admittedly we now have the opposite problem via obesity epidemic, but, now here comes GLP-1 innovation which… also increases wealth? Wealth is a pretty tricky thing to define but if people are paying money for it voluntarily it seems to qualify. |
|