4 ms·
It's also preposterous. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Compared to our ancestors in, say, 1000 BC, the vast majority of humanity is far, far, wealthier while the
by dbatten 8y ago
It's also preposterous. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Compared to our ancestors in, say, 1000 BC, the vast majority of humanity is far, far, wealthier while the few who are arguably no better off are not worse off either. That's all wealth we've created.
We can talk about whether it's a good or moral idea to transfer wealth, but let's not pretend like that's the only way to deal with poverty.
- ionised 8y ago> Wealth isn't a zero-sum game I keep seeing people say this but is there not a finite amount of wealth in the world at any given time? There are also the finite land and natural resources required for wealth creation.
- fullshark 8y agoThere's also human ingenuity, technology, and gov't stability which are multipliers on those finite land/natural resources. Skyscrapers increase real estate/land for example, courts protect property rights enabling one to invest capital in venture X.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. It expressly refers to relative, not absolute, wealth, which necessarily is zero-sum. (There's also quite a lot of evidence that relative, not absolute, wealth is the more important driver of exoerienced utility: humans are strongly programmed to be satisfied or not based on performance relative to expectations set by social environment, not absolute material condition. For this reason relative wealth is generally more important.)
- rohit2412 8y agoI've never understood this argument. Sure, wealth/trade isn't a zero sum game. That means that the net wealth in the system increases. But that doesn't mean each individual participant in the game is better off. The game night have a large competition component (which is zero sum) and would mean that the participants are not better off.