3 ms·
>...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
by 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 agoFirst 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.