5 ms·

This isn’t a zero-sum game

• bocajuniors 19y ago
  but still, not even america is a purelely capitalistic society,you do have some socialism in the blend.and the 20 or so western nations with higher standard of living are even less capitalistic.so in the trade off between the two ideas i think america should move towards socialism.of course there are other nations that should do the opposite
  • gibsonf1 19y ago
    It is the socialism in the blend of the US economy that drags us down as well as in other blended countries such as in Europe.
    • brlittle 19y ago
      Please cite your evidence for how we are being "dragged down," and please cite a purely capitalist society that rivals our own (or those of Western Europe). I'm willing to consider evidence, but not an unfounded assertion like this.
      • gibsonf1 19y ago
        The examples are numerous - please look around. Simple examples would include the rent control policies in New York and San Francisco. The intention: provide low cost rent for tenants at the expense of landlords. The reality: because of the rent control, the ROI for entering the rental business declined dramatically. This caused less development of rental units and rapidly increasing rents for the scarcer supply left. The result of rent control: chronically higher rents for all but those lucky enough to already be renting and a chronic under-supply of rental units. Other classic examples are the minimum wage which increases unemployment, medicare/Medicaid which drives up the cost of health care for all, excessive taxation to pay for all of the entitlements which is a disincentive to business, etc.
        • brlittle 19y ago
          Despite which, the US economy remains one of the largest and most productive in the free world. Your examples do not support your assertion. According to both the IMF and the World Bank, the world's 10 largest economies in 2006 were, in order, the EU, the US, Japan, Germany, the PRC, the UK, France, Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil. Very mixed economies, every one. I really don't see how this supports the idea that they're being "dragged down."
          • gibsonf1 19y ago
            Do you understand the point that the result of rent control is less rental units for renters, higher prices for renters, and less profit for landlords? How is that not dragging down what would otherwise be a sphere of creativity of landlords going out of their way to provide greater value to renters (to increase their profits) if the regulations were removed? Also, how does the fact that the US economy does well in comparison to other more socialist countries in any way show that removing the socialist controls we have now would not improve our economy even more?
            • brlittle 19y ago
              Yes, I understand that. I maintain that it doesn't support your argument that our economy is being dragged down. You may argue that it's not growing at the rate you think it would, and I can respond by arguing that the resulting society isn't one I'd want to live in -- that's a different discussion. But the general trend of growth year over in real GDP (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealGDPValues.xls http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalR...) is not evidence of being "dragged down." The trend is broadly up. Regarding your second point, this is a canard. The fact that the 10 largest, most successful economies in the world (in fact, most if not all of the top 20) incorporate elements of socialism (most to a much greater degree than the US) demonstrates that mixed economies can, and do, succeed. Your initial argument at least implies that a mixed economy is not a successful one. If I read that incorrectly, please tell me, because by most metrics, mixed economies are not only surviving, but prospering.
    • bocajuniors 19y ago
      but it is a well established fact that the standard of living in norway, denmark, finland, germany... well exceeds that of america.do tou really think that any of these countries are more capitalistic than america?
      • gibsonf1 19y ago
        I'd be interested to see some evidence for this well established fact.
        • bocajuniors 19y ago
          http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ the next one has you as number 3 in nort america: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/social_sciences/report-68324.html http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/social_scienc... this one puts the happiness in relation to environmental impact: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/map.htm http://www.happyplanetindex.org/map.htm
          • yummyfajitas 19y ago
            Happiness research is nonsense when used in this way. People from different cultures often have different conceptions of happiness. There are also calibration effects: show person X someone else better off than him, and tell him that guy reported 8/10 (happiness units). Then he will never report higher than 7/10. This isn't jealosy, it's just not knowing what the units mean. Another reason to see why there is something off: compare Bhutan on your first link (#133) and on your second (#8, higher than Canada).
• duncanr 19y ago
  The kids in the post add value by building more complex structures out of the raw materials, no? Does the author of the article think we have an infinite supply of raw materials? I read the original article as an experiment into control of raw materials rather than an experiment of added value vs. zero-sum. As much as economists may dislike it, these arguments seem to always boil down to 'who has control of the raw materials'; those that are empowered are happy with the current system, and those that are not empowered are not. The efficiencies of the market, and whether it's zero-sum or not, would seem to be a secondary concern for most participants.
  • gibsonf1 19y ago
    Raw materials are less limited than most people think. The usual scenario is that as a raw material gets scarcer, the price for it goes up. With the price higher, firms are incentivized to spend more on technology to reach formerly unreachable raw resources, etc. This is why we've been running out of oil for about 100 years - the price goes up, technology is deployed, etc. And if we really did start to run out of oil, then the value of energy would go up creating demand for alternates as the price now pays for greater technological breakthroughs, etc. So, to make a long story short, the idea that resources are a zero-sum game is also incorrect in the sense that the underlying value can be found given enough ingenuity unleashed with the profit motive. So the lego example is in no way a reflection of the real world, and if I could give this blog post a larger up vote, I would.
    • mynameishere 19y ago
      This is why resource reserves are usually accompanied by a price per unit: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reser... The global uranium reserves with mining costs up to US $ 80 per kilogram amount to about 2 million tonnes ... If mining costs of up to 130 $/kg are taken into consideration the global uranium reserves are increased by further 3 million tonnes. At some price, it will become possible to extract trace uranium from ocean water, of which there is quite a bit.
    • duncanr 19y ago
• brlittle 19y ago
  How is it, I wonder, that so many people get bent around the idea of making an economic analysis out of this? We're talking here about a playroom, the very nature and substance of which means that the teachers should be primarily concerned with making sure everyone has equitable access to the "resources" -- i.e. the toys. I think one can argue whether or not the teachers are doing that in an effective and appropriate way, certainly. But I believe that this one underlying fact is nonnegotiable. Personally, and as a parent, I find the repeated and forceful attempts to turn this into some kind of capitalist vs. socialist laboratory are both ill-conceived and ill-advised. Whatever else may be true of the situation, I believe it is certainly no place to institute a Lego-fied re-enactment of Lord of the Flies.
  • h34t 19y ago
    Are you talking about the teachers making an economic analysis out of the lego game, or the internet-comments making economic analysis out of what the teachers did? If the former, then I can at least understand your point, though I would disagree (I think that going through a simulation like this is a very interesting way to teach kids about economics and power, and I wish I'd had teachers who spent that much attention on trying to teach their students things they felt were important in life). If the latter, than it sounds like you misunderstood what the teachers did and why they did it. They were not primarily interested in the organizing a system that would merely provide kids with equitable access to toys in the playroom. They were interested in teaching the children their own version of how economics and social justice should be understood in real life, a version which many people (including me) take issue with for its fundamental lack of awareness of how wealth is created, and the effects of a system of organization on that wealth creation process.
• xirium 19y ago
  From the article: "It's plenty obvious that free commerce is not a zero-sum game. I go to the liquor store to buy beer. I buy five bottles of Staropolskie Zlote for about ten bucks. I value the beer more than I value the ten bucks -- else I wouldn't have given the clerk my money. The liquor store values my ten bucks more than the beer -- else they wouldn't have sold it to me. We both come away from the exchange happier: I have my beer, they have their money. We both get what we wanted. The world is, in fact, a better place after that exchange than it was before... at least for me and for the liquor store." From the article: "One firm adds value by trucking the beer from the brewery to a port. Another firm adds value by shipping the beer across the Atlantic. A third firm adds value by shipping the beer across Canada, and yet a fourth firm adds value by providing a broad selection of beers in a relatively convenient place for my buying pleasure." Congratulations. You've discovered Pareto efficiency ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency ), the means by which goods are distributed.
  • davidw 19y ago
    I thought that goods were distributed with trucks:->
• toffer 19y ago
  I keep seeing comments about how the original builders of Legotown were unjustly punished for being successful little proto-capitalists. The argument goes something like: "They added value to their raw materials and created something great and beautiful. Then they were struck down for being better than their peers, and all the children were doomed to a life of uniform mediocrity." To me, the story of Legotown was not one about capitalism. The questions about whether the builders added value to their Lego brick raw materials, and whether the trading game only allowed zero-sum transactions are irrelevant to the larger point of the story. To me, the story of Legotown is about legitimate and illegitimate authority. By what right did the original builders of Legotown assert their authority over the Legos? Why were they able to make the rules about who could use the Legos and who couldn't? Because they got their first? Because they built the best, most elaborate structures? Because they were bigger? There were no classroom rules that allowed them to claim ownership of the Legos. Instead, they took control of the Legos by force and simply asserted their right to make the rules about them. Yes, capitalism requires adding value to raw materials and ability to trade freely, but it also requires the rule of law that is accepted as legitimate by its participants. If there had been rules about claiming ownership of toys in the classroom, then the builders could have followed those rules and then enforced their own rules about things that they owned. But, in the absence of such a governing framework, they cannot simply assert that they own something, and then expect others to accept their authority. That's also the real point of the trading game. It wasn't to model capitalism. It was to show the children how it felt to be treated in a system ruled by arbitrary, illegitimate power. By what right do the holders of all the green Legos get to make the rules? Why should their power be considered legitimate? The answer is it shouldn't, because tilting the game in favor of the green Lego holders is obviously arbitrary and unjust. And, if it's unfair for the green Lego holders to make the rules in the trading game, how is that different than the original builders making all the rules about who can and cannot participate in Legotown? In the end, the children earned back the Legos. But, it wasn't because they agreed to a more "Socialist" set of rules imposed by the teachers. Instead, it was because the children came together and agreed to a set of rules that reflected their values of fairness and justice. And, because the rules were the result of their input, the children considered them to be legitimate.