5 ms·

I have a saw, you have a log. If we bring our resources together, we can build something more economically valuable than the sum of the parts, and we both benef

I have a saw, you have a log. If we bring our resources together, we can build something more economically valuable than the sum of the parts, and we both benefit. That's not a zero sum game.

crimsonalucard 10y ago
It is zero sum. Did you even read past the first sentence of my post? The situation is much more complex, and unfortunately I can't elegantly shoot you down with one highly misguided sentence as you tried to do for my argument. Let me spell it out for you in a way you can comprehend: 1. There is a limited amount of logs that the earth can produce. 2. There is also a limited amount of metal that the earth can produce. 3. There is also a limited amount of energy that we can extract from the earth or the sun. 4. Therefore, there is a LIMITED amount saws I can build with metal and energy. 5. With logs and saws being limited, then that means there is also is also a limited amount of "things" that can be built with the logs and saws. What this all means: The totality of "things" that can potentially be built with limited resources is limited because resources are in itself limited. This totality can be referred to as our economic pie (or cake). Once a slice of pie is extracted and eaten another person cannot eat it. That is zero sum. See cake example in the very short first paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
- antisthenes 10y ago
  "It's not zero-sum" is a popular and lazy fallacy used by economically illiterate people to argue against welfare policies. It goes hand in hand with the just world fallacy, which, in conjunction is used to justify the position of the currently capital-poor class. E.G. Because the economy is not zero-sum, those people would have been able to produce wealth for themselves with the same ease as the people who are currently in possession of wealth/capital.
  - mhluongo 10y ago
    For the record, I'm certainly sympathetic to arguments re: wealth inequality. I've just observed first-hand that it's possible to create value without taking something away from someone else.
    - crimsonalucard 10y ago
      The value was never created. It was extracted from a resource. Creation implies that it came from nothing. It is highly unlikely whatever you created came from nothing.
      - mhluongo 10y ago
        Value is a subjective thing. Of course it can be created- if I decide to value something.
        crimsonalucard 10y ago
        Then when you value an apple to be one billion trillion dollars did you increase the economy by one billion trillion dollars? No. That makes no sense. There is value and then there is intrinsic value aka True value. True value is extracted not created.
        mhluongo 10y ago
        Ah. Here you'll find you're miles from most people's definition.
        crimsonalucard 10y ago
        Nobody in the real world thinks value is subjective because if I subjectively valued an apple at two billion dollars everyone would think I'm crazy. Only people who blindly read economic textbooks will take that misguided definition at face value.
        10y ago
  - intended 10y ago
    NOT from America, so I don't have to hold the same cultural beleifs you'll do. I have no idea why welfare is linked with the non Zero sumness of the economy, nor subscribe to the other notions mentioned. Matter of fact, I have diametrically different positions. My question to you though, is how the economy being non zero sum is a fallacy. I've had to work directly in economics and finance, so if I got this wrong it would be a huge gap. I'd really like to understand how it's a fallacy.
  - opo 10y ago
    >...used by economically illiterate people Please don't insult people on this forum. In terms of your statement: >..."It's not zero-sum" is a popular and lazy fallacy Simply look at the simplest case. Unless coercion is involved, if I make a trade with someone, the only reason I do it is because I am better off because of the trade or I wouldn't do it. The same goes for the other side of the trade. So we decide to do a trade and both of us are better off than we were before.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      First of all, it's really not an insult and more of a statement. Barging into a thread and yelling "economy is not zero sum" is the CS equivalent of doing the same and yelling something like "X is not a good programming language" with no explanation or context. Wouldn't you be considered illiterate in that programming language by someone who uses it? > So we decide to do a trade and both of us are better off than we were before. In a vacuum, yes. However, consider that no actual new goods have been produced. Does your example work in the case when one party is unable or unwilling to see the benefit of the trade? Does it work when no new goods can be produced by one of the parties, like in the example of land? If you want a more detailed statement - in the short run, everything in economics is essentially zero-sum. As we progress towards a longer time frame, it shifts to being non-zero sum, with the exception of intrinsically limited resources. > Simply look at the simplest case. Yes, most users of this site look at Economics as some series of simplest case scenarios. I'm standing by this statement until I see evidence to the contrary.
- mhluongo 10y ago
  What's misguided is your fatalistic application of thermodynamics. I of course understand that there is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and that it will one day all stop due to heat death. I disagree that that has any impact on our much smaller, more limited human experience. I also disagree that the entirety of human demand is about raw resources, ignoring art, romance, or other interests in our lives. Unfortunately, you'd then argue that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, with which we can only build 10^24 paintbrushes.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    Thermodynamics does have an impact. I don't need to show you ludicrous examples to prove my point either. Take gasoline. When you use it, you convert it to a unusable state. Oil is finite and as fracking wanes the supply will lessen and the price will go up. This is not a unrealistic application, but a very real application of thermodynamics that will have a very real impact on your life. >I also disagree that the entirety of human demand is about raw resources, ignoring art, romance, or other interests in our lives. I don't ignore art or romance. But every economic product follows an economic food chain and the root of that chain is ALWAYS a raw resource. Take romance for instance: IN order to experience romance you must be alive. IN order to be alive you need food and air (raw resource). In order to make food you need to grow plants or animals. In order to grow an animal you need to feed it plants. In order to grow plants you need to give it earth (raw resource), sun (raw resource) and water (raw resource). Note how the economic chain splits into many threads and always terminates at a raw resource. This chain of dependence ends at a resource that is limited therefore all of art and other abstractions are limited. >Unfortunately, you'd then argue that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, with which we can only build 10^24 paintbrushes. What's unfortunate is not the fact that I have an argument but the fact that you have NO argument.
    - mhluongo 10y ago
      My argument is fairly straightforward. The universe is much larger than our appetites, and that's the horizon we're talking about with economics- centuries, not the heat death of the universe. Your comment about gasoline is a good example of a resource that has a real world constraint, but it doesn't show that economics is zero sum. It shows that the limited game, where the goal is to obtain as much gasoline as possible, is zero sum. If I also use nuclear power, I'm not playing that game. We have a sad tendency to ignore negative externalities, as a species. And it could be our undoing. But countering that by claiming that human econonic activity is zero sum is an abuse of game theory.

I have a saw, you have a log. If we bring our resources together, we can build something more economically valuable than the sum of the parts, and we both benefit. That's not a zero sum game.

crimsonalucard 10y ago

It is zero sum. Did you even read past the first sentence of my post? The situation is much more complex, and unfortunately I can't elegantly shoot you down with one highly misguided sentence as you tried to do for my argument. Let me spell it out for you in a way you can comprehend: 1. There is a limited amount of logs that the earth can produce. 2. There is also a limited amount of metal that the earth can produce. 3. There is also a limited amount of energy that we can extract from the earth or the sun. 4. Therefore, there is a LIMITED amount saws I can build with metal and energy. 5. With logs and saws being limited, then that means there is also is also a limited amount of "things" that can be built with the logs and saws. What this all means: The totality of "things" that can potentially be built with limited resources is limited because resources are in itself limited. This totality can be referred to as our economic pie (or cake). Once a slice of pie is extracted and eaten another person cannot eat it. That is zero sum. See cake example in the very short first paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

antisthenes 10y ago
"It's not zero-sum" is a popular and lazy fallacy used by economically illiterate people to argue against welfare policies. It goes hand in hand with the just world fallacy, which, in conjunction is used to justify the position of the currently capital-poor class. E.G. Because the economy is not zero-sum, those people would have been able to produce wealth for themselves with the same ease as the people who are currently in possession of wealth/capital.
- mhluongo 10y ago
  For the record, I'm certainly sympathetic to arguments re: wealth inequality. I've just observed first-hand that it's possible to create value without taking something away from someone else.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    The value was never created. It was extracted from a resource. Creation implies that it came from nothing. It is highly unlikely whatever you created came from nothing.
    - mhluongo 10y ago
      Value is a subjective thing. Of course it can be created- if I decide to value something.
      - crimsonalucard 10y ago
        Then when you value an apple to be one billion trillion dollars did you increase the economy by one billion trillion dollars? No. That makes no sense. There is value and then there is intrinsic value aka True value. True value is extracted not created.
        mhluongo 10y ago
        Ah. Here you'll find you're miles from most people's definition.
        crimsonalucard 10y ago
        Nobody in the real world thinks value is subjective because if I subjectively valued an apple at two billion dollars everyone would think I'm crazy. Only people who blindly read economic textbooks will take that misguided definition at face value.
        10y ago
- intended 10y ago
  NOT from America, so I don't have to hold the same cultural beleifs you'll do. I have no idea why welfare is linked with the non Zero sumness of the economy, nor subscribe to the other notions mentioned. Matter of fact, I have diametrically different positions. My question to you though, is how the economy being non zero sum is a fallacy. I've had to work directly in economics and finance, so if I got this wrong it would be a huge gap. I'd really like to understand how it's a fallacy.
- opo 10y ago
  >...used by economically illiterate people Please don't insult people on this forum. In terms of your statement: >..."It's not zero-sum" is a popular and lazy fallacy Simply look at the simplest case. Unless coercion is involved, if I make a trade with someone, the only reason I do it is because I am better off because of the trade or I wouldn't do it. The same goes for the other side of the trade. So we decide to do a trade and both of us are better off than we were before.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    First of all, it's really not an insult and more of a statement. Barging into a thread and yelling "economy is not zero sum" is the CS equivalent of doing the same and yelling something like "X is not a good programming language" with no explanation or context. Wouldn't you be considered illiterate in that programming language by someone who uses it? > So we decide to do a trade and both of us are better off than we were before. In a vacuum, yes. However, consider that no actual new goods have been produced. Does your example work in the case when one party is unable or unwilling to see the benefit of the trade? Does it work when no new goods can be produced by one of the parties, like in the example of land? If you want a more detailed statement - in the short run, everything in economics is essentially zero-sum. As we progress towards a longer time frame, it shifts to being non-zero sum, with the exception of intrinsically limited resources. > Simply look at the simplest case. Yes, most users of this site look at Economics as some series of simplest case scenarios. I'm standing by this statement until I see evidence to the contrary.
mhluongo 10y ago
What's misguided is your fatalistic application of thermodynamics. I of course understand that there is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and that it will one day all stop due to heat death. I disagree that that has any impact on our much smaller, more limited human experience. I also disagree that the entirety of human demand is about raw resources, ignoring art, romance, or other interests in our lives. Unfortunately, you'd then argue that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, with which we can only build 10^24 paintbrushes.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  Thermodynamics does have an impact. I don't need to show you ludicrous examples to prove my point either. Take gasoline. When you use it, you convert it to a unusable state. Oil is finite and as fracking wanes the supply will lessen and the price will go up. This is not a unrealistic application, but a very real application of thermodynamics that will have a very real impact on your life. >I also disagree that the entirety of human demand is about raw resources, ignoring art, romance, or other interests in our lives. I don't ignore art or romance. But every economic product follows an economic food chain and the root of that chain is ALWAYS a raw resource. Take romance for instance: IN order to experience romance you must be alive. IN order to be alive you need food and air (raw resource). In order to make food you need to grow plants or animals. In order to grow an animal you need to feed it plants. In order to grow plants you need to give it earth (raw resource), sun (raw resource) and water (raw resource). Note how the economic chain splits into many threads and always terminates at a raw resource. This chain of dependence ends at a resource that is limited therefore all of art and other abstractions are limited. >Unfortunately, you'd then argue that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, with which we can only build 10^24 paintbrushes. What's unfortunate is not the fact that I have an argument but the fact that you have NO argument.
  - mhluongo 10y ago
    My argument is fairly straightforward. The universe is much larger than our appetites, and that's the horizon we're talking about with economics- centuries, not the heat death of the universe. Your comment about gasoline is a good example of a resource that has a real world constraint, but it doesn't show that economics is zero sum. It shows that the limited game, where the goal is to obtain as much gasoline as possible, is zero sum. If I also use nuclear power, I'm not playing that game. We have a sad tendency to ignore negative externalities, as a species. And it could be our undoing. But countering that by claiming that human econonic activity is zero sum is an abuse of game theory.