3 ms·

> if it was zero sum - you earning money would mean somebody losing it Earning money means somebody loosing it. It is only possible to earn w/o somebody loos

by zaro 7y ago

> if it was zero sum - you earning money would mean somebody losing it Earning money means somebody loosing it. It is only possible to earn w/o somebody loosing by either narrowing the definition of somebody, or limit the time frame in which the process is occurring. For example, most of the animals are not considered somebody, that's why their loss of habitat, is not considered somebody loosing money. I think in economics these are called externalities. It's not that they don't have a cost, it's just that we prefer to ignore it, because there's nobody to complaint about it,

zygimantasdev 7y ago
Sure, I agree about scope of the process - if we consider all particles in universe part of economy discussed- exchanges are zero sum. However, I was appealing to the parent's basic survival and self worth zero sum economy where humans making money will mean others losing. That is simply not true, simple natural resources, ideas, innovations are making our economy non zero sum.
- zaro 7y ago
  > That is simply not true, simple natural resources, ideas, innovations are making our economy non zero sum. Thats exactly what I am talking about. Natural resources sre making the economy non zero sum game. This is the reduction I am talking about, its easy to think the natural resources are simply there to use and nobody owns them ( thus breaking out of the zero sum) but is this smart thing to believe? Where does it end? When everything that can be turned into money has been, what happens then? "According to sustainability experts, we currently need 1.7 planets to support humanity's demand on Earth's ecosystems."[0] How long do you think this fairy tale about natural resources being something there outside of our economics game will last. [0] https://m.dw.com/en/the-earth-is-exhausted-were-using-up-its-resources-faster-than-it-can-provide/a-39924823 https://m.dw.com/en/the-earth-is-exhausted-were-using-up-its...
edanm 7y ago
> Earning money means somebody loosing it. It is only possible to earn w/o somebody loosing by either narrowing the definition of somebody, or limit the time frame in which the process is occurring. That's absolutely not true and completely at odds with any kind of mainstream economics. You're focusing on money, where what you should be really focusing on is wealth - and wealth can absolutely be created "from thin air". (Luckily, money can also be created from thin air to keep up with the new amount of wealth in the world, but that's a whole other topic). The simplest example of new wealth creation is new technology - if I figure out a way to make the same product, only faster/better/etc, then I'll be able to offer the same "product" at less money, thereby making everyone better off. Assume for the sake of argument that I'm the only one creating this product - in the real world, this might hurt competitors in the short run, which makes sense - it gives me an incentive to create new technology! But technology propagates in the long run, so eventually everyone is making the prodcuts more cheaply, and anyone who buys them wins.
- zaro 7y ago
  > That's absolutely not true and completely at odds with any kind of mainstream economics. Yes, because mainstream economics has everything righ in their story. > The simplest example of new wealth creation is new technology - if I figure out a way to make the same product, only faster/better/etc, then I'll be able to offer the same "product" at less money, thereby making everyone better offThe simplest example of new wealth creation is new technology - if I figure out a way to make the same product, only faster/better/etc, then I'll be able to offer the same "product" at less money, thereby making everyone better off You see we live in times where apparently microplastics and pesticides are detectable in human bodies. I personally don't buy the fairytale about the magic technology. Yes you've managed to make product that is faster/better and you managed to externalize the costs for this so it seems like it's only win.

by zaro 7y ago

zygimantasdev 7y ago

Sure, I agree about scope of the process - if we consider all particles in universe part of economy discussed- exchanges are zero sum. However, I was appealing to the parent's basic survival and self worth zero sum economy where humans making money will mean others losing. That is simply not true, simple natural resources, ideas, innovations are making our economy non zero sum.

zaro 7y ago
> That is simply not true, simple natural resources, ideas, innovations are making our economy non zero sum. Thats exactly what I am talking about. Natural resources sre making the economy non zero sum game. This is the reduction I am talking about, its easy to think the natural resources are simply there to use and nobody owns them ( thus breaking out of the zero sum) but is this smart thing to believe? Where does it end? When everything that can be turned into money has been, what happens then? "According to sustainability experts, we currently need 1.7 planets to support humanity's demand on Earth's ecosystems."[0] How long do you think this fairy tale about natural resources being something there outside of our economics game will last. [0] https://m.dw.com/en/the-earth-is-exhausted-were-using-up-its-resources-faster-than-it-can-provide/a-39924823 https://m.dw.com/en/the-earth-is-exhausted-were-using-up-its...

edanm 7y ago

> Earning money means somebody loosing it. It is only possible to earn w/o somebody loosing by either narrowing the definition of somebody, or limit the time frame in which the process is occurring. That's absolutely not true and completely at odds with any kind of mainstream economics. You're focusing on money, where what you should be really focusing on is wealth - and wealth can absolutely be created "from thin air". (Luckily, money can also be created from thin air to keep up with the new amount of wealth in the world, but that's a whole other topic). The simplest example of new wealth creation is new technology - if I figure out a way to make the same product, only faster/better/etc, then I'll be able to offer the same "product" at less money, thereby making everyone better off. Assume for the sake of argument that I'm the only one creating this product - in the real world, this might hurt competitors in the short run, which makes sense - it gives me an incentive to create new technology! But technology propagates in the long run, so eventually everyone is making the prodcuts more cheaply, and anyone who buys them wins.

zaro 7y ago
> That's absolutely not true and completely at odds with any kind of mainstream economics. Yes, because mainstream economics has everything righ in their story. > The simplest example of new wealth creation is new technology - if I figure out a way to make the same product, only faster/better/etc, then I'll be able to offer the same "product" at less money, thereby making everyone better offThe simplest example of new wealth creation is new technology - if I figure out a way to make the same product, only faster/better/etc, then I'll be able to offer the same "product" at less money, thereby making everyone better off You see we live in times where apparently microplastics and pesticides are detectable in human bodies. I personally don't buy the fairytale about the magic technology. Yes you've managed to make product that is faster/better and you managed to externalize the costs for this so it seems like it's only win.