3 ms·

To expand... it's false, because wealth is not a zero sum game. There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117. Most of t

To expand... it's false, because wealth is not a zero sum game. There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117. Most of the wealthiest folks get rich by inventing/creating new wealth, not by stealing from others. If capitalism was just a competition, we'd still be fighting over castles and wheat and Trojan women. Cars, computers, and indoor plumbing wouldn't exist.

arximboldi 9y ago
> wealth is not a zero sum game. Agreed. > There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117 Agreed. Also inequality is higher than ever. > Most of the wealthiest folks get rich by inventing/creating new wealth, not by stealing from others. False. They get rich by extracting surplus out of the new wealth created by someone's labor. Whether we call that stealing or not I don't care. > If capitalism was just a competition, we'd still be fighting over castles and wheat and Trojan women. Cars, computers, and indoor plumbing wouldn't exist. As I said, wealth is not a zero sum game. But for someone to be rich, someone has to be poor. By definition. For someone to extract surplus, someone has to create value--i.e. work. By definition. Now, you could argue that in a society with a lot of wealth, one can be "poor by definition" or a salaried worker, and still live a life in dignity. I concede that this could be a theoretical possibility. It could make for an interesting science fiction novel. In most parts of the real world (including the USA), being poor is miserable and doing salaried work is alienating and most often exploitative.
badestrand 9y ago
Of course wealth is a zero zum game, because being wealthy is defined as having much more than others, disregarding the absolute amount. This is how we humans work, we compare us to our neighbors. So 1) not everyone can be wealthy and 2) for a single person to become more wealthy someone else gets poorer.
- doubleunplussed 9y ago
  You're using a different definition to those who you disagree with. Clearly relative wealth is a zero sum game. By definition - relative wealth is defined by your difference from the mean, so any change in society's overall wealth is subtracted off. Absolute wealth is empirically not zero sum. Any disagreement about whether "wealth is zero sum" is either disputing that empirical result, or arguing that the relative wealth definition is more important somehow. So if you're going to argue that you should provide some reasoning. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and that maximising something like median wealth is what's optimal for human flourishing.

arximboldi 9y ago

> wealth is not a zero sum game. Agreed. > There is WAY more wealth around on earth in 2017 than there was in 1917, 1017, or 117 Agreed. Also inequality is higher than ever. > Most of the wealthiest folks get rich by inventing/creating new wealth, not by stealing from others. False. They get rich by extracting surplus out of the new wealth created by someone's labor. Whether we call that stealing or not I don't care. > If capitalism was just a competition, we'd still be fighting over castles and wheat and Trojan women. Cars, computers, and indoor plumbing wouldn't exist. As I said, wealth is not a zero sum game. But for someone to be rich, someone has to be poor. By definition. For someone to extract surplus, someone has to create value--i.e. work. By definition. Now, you could argue that in a society with a lot of wealth, one can be "poor by definition" or a salaried worker, and still live a life in dignity. I concede that this could be a theoretical possibility. It could make for an interesting science fiction novel. In most parts of the real world (including the USA), being poor is miserable and doing salaried work is alienating and most often exploitative.

badestrand 9y ago

Of course wealth is a zero zum game, because being wealthy is defined as having much more than others, disregarding the absolute amount. This is how we humans work, we compare us to our neighbors. So 1) not everyone can be wealthy and 2) for a single person to become more wealthy someone else gets poorer.

doubleunplussed 9y ago
You're using a different definition to those who you disagree with. Clearly relative wealth is a zero sum game. By definition - relative wealth is defined by your difference from the mean, so any change in society's overall wealth is subtracted off. Absolute wealth is empirically not zero sum. Any disagreement about whether "wealth is zero sum" is either disputing that empirical result, or arguing that the relative wealth definition is more important somehow. So if you're going to argue that you should provide some reasoning. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and that maximising something like median wealth is what's optimal for human flourishing.