3 ms·
Yes. If wealth were a zero-sum game, every choice would have to result in the same total amount of wealth in the world. Wealth could not be created or destroyed
by slavik81 9y ago
Yes. If wealth were a zero-sum game, every choice would have to result in the same total amount of wealth in the world. Wealth could not be created or destroyed, only transferred. Any use of a resource would be equally as valuable as any other.
That's clearly not the case. The classic example is building a house alone in the woods, but let's consider art. With different choices, a person could use the same paint to make a good or a bad painting. The choices made while painting decide if it will be a mess or something beautiful. Even if it's never shown or sold to anyone else, the person who made a beautiful painting would be wealthier for it.
- dredmorbius 9y agoWealth, generally, is destroyed with time. Much of what's seen as wealth production is instead liquidity production -- turning natural capital into financial currency. In the case of any production chain founded on fossil-fuel energy, the transformation requires a draw-down of natural capital worth many millions of times the market-price and wealth "created". Activities founded on renewable or sustainable processes are less fraught, but there's still the accounting for potential disruption or reduction: soil loss (rougly 100x the rate of creation), sink-exhaustion (waste and pollution factors), biodiversity loss (rates of extinction > speciation), and the like. There's little accounting for any of this within conventional economic theory. Ecological, biophysical, and thermoeconomics address parts. Steve Keen is starting to write mathematical descriptions of production factors in which the role of energy is taken into account.