5 ms·
I was with you until the end, but none of those functions are inherently zero-sum. Perhaps it's mostly a nit-pick, but zero-sum has a very specific meaning, and
by mseebach 8y ago
I was with you until the end, but none of those functions are inherently zero-sum. Perhaps it's mostly a nit-pick, but zero-sum has a very specific meaning, and it isn't "stuff we wish we didn't have to do", which seems to be the unifying factor in those functions.
- zby 8y agoWhich particular one you think is not zero-sum? Military is kind of obviously zero-sum - the others are a bit more mixed - but the waste is in their zero-sum function (and the examples are not mine - they are from the article).
- mseebach 8y agoMilitary in the sense that it deters attack can be massively positive-sum, depending on how you account for the value of not being attacked and maintaining national sovereignty. Military in the sense of, let's say, the Iraq invasion turned out to be massively negative-sum (but would have been massively positive-sum if the rosy optimistic nation-building intentions had worked). On the other hand, the Balkan interventions of the 90's were probably positive-sum, at least when you include the peace and relative prosperity enabled there, and not just limited to benefits in the home countries of the militaries involved. Graeber call these jobs "bullshit" or "useless", he doesn't to my knowledge call them zero-sum (and I didn't see that term used in the article?). My point was to agree with you that these jobs seem useless, but probably aren't, because exactly as you describe, of complexity (generally, of course, individual instances may well prove to be useless).
- zby 8y agoMy point was that military is a zero-sum (or technically negative sum) in the game between nations (that was the meaning 'on a bigger scale').
- tome 8y agoSure, if you think the "game between nations" is scored on how much territory one occupies, rather than how prosperous the nations are.
- zby 8y agoCan you explain how military makes a nation prosperous? Somehow I cannot comment deeper in this thread - so I'll comment here. Defending territory is not making it prosperous. If nations did not attack each other with their armies they would not need armies to defend them from that, and they all would be more prosperous.
- tome 8y agomseebach has already covered that.
- senorjazz 8y agoProtecting foreign "interests" you have control of? Bending foreign countries to do your will? Out right stealing of lands? Britain did very well off the back and resources of foreign countries due to their military from southern Asia. See Spain in Latan America. France in West Africa. US picking up the pieces of the remnants of the Spanish empire. These things were not accomplished due to the kindness and beneign-ness of the dominating force - regardless of what the home country was told (Britain: civilising the natives, US: bring democracy etc etc)
- tome 8y agoThat would be more towards the zero (or negative) sum end of things ...
- tome 8y ago> Defending territory is not making it prosperous. If nations did not attack each other with their armies they would not need armies to defend them from that, and they all would be more prosperous. I suggest you look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma > Somehow I cannot comment deeper in this thread You can if you click the time on the comment. That will take you directly to a text box where you can reply. I never understood why HN works like this.