3 ms·

Transplanting an apple tree doesn't add more apples, it just produces apples somewhere else. Planting apple seeds doesn't really produce more apples either, you

Transplanting an apple tree doesn't add more apples, it just produces apples somewhere else. Planting apple seeds doesn't really produce more apples either, you need to have an already available tree that you can graft apple tree cuttings onto. Even if you do get a brand new apple tree, it still takes some amount of time (at least a year, though likely much more) before you get any additional apples. So, the game 15 years from now may have more apples available, but the current game has a finite amount of apples available to the participants.

davidw 11y ago
I don't think you understand what it means in the sense of economics then. It is not "all the available goods in one precise instant of time". It's how people interact in the economy over time. Compare and contrast the creation of an apple orchard with, say, going on a raid to the neighboring village's apple orchard, stealing all their apples, and cutting down all their trees. That's a negative-sum game. Looking at the entire economy, everyone is poorer, even if the raiders temporarily get some more apples. They haven't created any wealth, though; they've destroyed it. Since labor is not instantaneous - planting a crop and waiting for it to grow takes time - writing code takes time - building a car takes time - economists talk about those interactions as non zero-sum. The total amount of goods at any one instant in time is some other measure.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  So, you are saying that even though the current game is zero-sum, at some future point in time, we can consider it not zero-sum? How does this not violate several laws of conservation?
  - davidw 11y ago
    No, I'm saying you're very confused about the generally accepted meanings of those terms in economics. The very meaning of 'game' implies one or more moves by each player. A photo of a chess board does not a chess game make, in other words. > How does this not violate several laws of conservation? That's physics, not economics. We're not talking about the total mass or energy or something in a system. Physics does not care if an apple tree produces apples for people to eat; people do.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Did economics somehow escape physics? The economy is exactly the transference of mass and energy in a system. The size of the game may increase over time, but that doesn't mean the sum of all transactions is not still 0. Maybe you could supply a definition of what you are talking about?

davidw 11y ago

I don't think you understand what it means in the sense of economics then. It is not "all the available goods in one precise instant of time". It's how people interact in the economy over time. Compare and contrast the creation of an apple orchard with, say, going on a raid to the neighboring village's apple orchard, stealing all their apples, and cutting down all their trees. That's a negative-sum game. Looking at the entire economy, everyone is poorer, even if the raiders temporarily get some more apples. They haven't created any wealth, though; they've destroyed it. Since labor is not instantaneous - planting a crop and waiting for it to grow takes time - writing code takes time - building a car takes time - economists talk about those interactions as non zero-sum. The total amount of goods at any one instant in time is some other measure.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
So, you are saying that even though the current game is zero-sum, at some future point in time, we can consider it not zero-sum? How does this not violate several laws of conservation?
- davidw 11y ago
  No, I'm saying you're very confused about the generally accepted meanings of those terms in economics. The very meaning of 'game' implies one or more moves by each player. A photo of a chess board does not a chess game make, in other words. > How does this not violate several laws of conservation? That's physics, not economics. We're not talking about the total mass or energy or something in a system. Physics does not care if an apple tree produces apples for people to eat; people do.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Did economics somehow escape physics? The economy is exactly the transference of mass and energy in a system. The size of the game may increase over time, but that doesn't mean the sum of all transactions is not still 0. Maybe you could supply a definition of what you are talking about?