4 ms·

"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

"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.
        mhluongo 10y ago
        People who blindly read textbooks, as well as anyone with real world market experience. If you believe in economic value as an objective truth, and not based on the subjective view of a buyer or seller, we have no common ground to continue this discussion.
        crimsonalucard 10y ago
        We do have common ground. The common ground is exactly as you say: real world people with real market experience. But before I get into that real world example... you just threatened to end the discussion if I disagree with you. This is weak. I am telling you I can end this argument not on a mere disagreement... I can end this argument with factual, non-subjective evidence that will prove you wrong. Now, onto the real world example: Warren Buffet, arguably one of the most successful investors on the planet. Warren Buffet operates on a investment strategy known as investing on intrinsic value. In other words he believes that the market fluctuations of a stock price by the daily subjective valuations of day traders are meaningless, he peers beyond the noise and picks stocks based off of a very real economic concept called "intrinsic value" or a true value separate from the subjective valuations of people. Intrinsic value is a very real and actual concept. Warren Buffet believes it and many many other real world and experienced investors follow the strategy as well. See sources below: This link is solid proof intrinsic value exists as a theory in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value This link shows intrinsic value applied in finance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) This link shows intrinsic value applied as a stock investment strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing This is a biography on warren buffet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett Academia and "most people" are not unanimously sided with you. The above argument is solid proof. This is not a mere disagreement and if you end the discussion here it's an admission of total and utter loss.
  - MrFantastic 10y ago
    A painter creates value when they add color to a blank canvas. Some colored canvases are worth millions of dollars.
    - crimsonalucard 10y ago
      The value was not created. The value was extracted from supplies, skill and time required to paint it.
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

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.
        mhluongo 10y ago
        People who blindly read textbooks, as well as anyone with real world market experience. If you believe in economic value as an objective truth, and not based on the subjective view of a buyer or seller, we have no common ground to continue this discussion.
        crimsonalucard 10y ago
        We do have common ground. The common ground is exactly as you say: real world people with real market experience. But before I get into that real world example... you just threatened to end the discussion if I disagree with you. This is weak. I am telling you I can end this argument not on a mere disagreement... I can end this argument with factual, non-subjective evidence that will prove you wrong. Now, onto the real world example: Warren Buffet, arguably one of the most successful investors on the planet. Warren Buffet operates on a investment strategy known as investing on intrinsic value. In other words he believes that the market fluctuations of a stock price by the daily subjective valuations of day traders are meaningless, he peers beyond the noise and picks stocks based off of a very real economic concept called "intrinsic value" or a true value separate from the subjective valuations of people. Intrinsic value is a very real and actual concept. Warren Buffet believes it and many many other real world and experienced investors follow the strategy as well. See sources below: This link is solid proof intrinsic value exists as a theory in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value This link shows intrinsic value applied in finance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) This link shows intrinsic value applied as a stock investment strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing This is a biography on warren buffet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett Academia and "most people" are not unanimously sided with you. The above argument is solid proof. This is not a mere disagreement and if you end the discussion here it's an admission of total and utter loss.
- MrFantastic 10y ago
  A painter creates value when they add color to a blank canvas. Some colored canvases are worth millions of dollars.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    The value was not created. The value was extracted from supplies, skill and time required to paint it.

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.