5 ms·

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. The whole premise that the rich make money by taking it from poor people is flawed. This premise has been the basis for many po

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. The whole premise that the rich make money by taking it from poor people is flawed. This premise has been the basis for many political uprisings (e.g. Venezuela) where wealth has been destroyed instead of created.

nexthash 6y ago
In Venezuela the rich were never destroyed, I'd argue that Chavez and his supporters rose into a new class of elites. They control the oil company, drug smuggling, etc. I'd argue that wealth as a zero sum game is a part of the premise - there is the whole pie (economy) and then there are slices (who reaps the benefits). By growing the size of the pie you grow the economy, but then the task becomes dividing the pie reasonably to ensure stability and reduce societal problems. In Venezuela, the economy is shafted for numerous reasons - huge concentration of the whole pie into a small elite does no good for the rest of the country, and was worsened by sanctions punishing these actions.
omosubi 6y ago
so the american 1% alone has created 50T in wealth in the last several decades? seems unlikely
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  50T looks about right according to this chart: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
  - onethought 6y ago
    That chart doesn’t strengthen your point. What (direct) action did those 1% take that generated 50T?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Wise capital allocation.
      - onethought 6y ago
        So they didn’t generate that money... whatever they allocated it to did.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        They generated the money by allocating it to a process that was productive. > whatever they allocated it to did. Machines are inanimate.
        onethought 6y ago
        I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Church of capitalism might have convinced to otherwise. But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ...
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at. > The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people. > But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ... If you pay me and my worker’s comp insurance then you can say “we carried 10kg up the mountain” because I wouldn’t have done it for free or without insurance.
        onethought 6y ago
kar5pt 6y ago
But if there's an alternative tax/regulation structure that can make distribution more equitable without affecting production too much, then the game can be zero sum, or close to zero sum. We don't have to choose between America and Venezuela. That's a false dichotomy.
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  I did not intend to draw any comparisons. My point was that the narrative about "Taking" wealth is false, and that it has been used for evil political purposes.
onethought 6y ago
Some wealth is not zero-sum. But a lot of wealth is resource based which is by definition zero-sum. But that aside: the top 1% got their by exploiting the surplus value of the 99% regardless of whether wealth was being created or moved, it definitely wasn’t that 1% creating or moving it.
igammarays 6y ago
Wealth may not be a zero-sum game, but when millions of people are struggling to pay rent, that line of argument doesn't matter.

nexthash 6y ago

In Venezuela the rich were never destroyed, I'd argue that Chavez and his supporters rose into a new class of elites. They control the oil company, drug smuggling, etc. I'd argue that wealth as a zero sum game is a part of the premise - there is the whole pie (economy) and then there are slices (who reaps the benefits). By growing the size of the pie you grow the economy, but then the task becomes dividing the pie reasonably to ensure stability and reduce societal problems. In Venezuela, the economy is shafted for numerous reasons - huge concentration of the whole pie into a small elite does no good for the rest of the country, and was worsened by sanctions punishing these actions.

omosubi 6y ago

so the american 1% alone has created 50T in wealth in the last several decades? seems unlikely

anonymousiam 6y ago
50T looks about right according to this chart: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
- onethought 6y ago
  That chart doesn’t strengthen your point. What (direct) action did those 1% take that generated 50T?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Wise capital allocation.
    - onethought 6y ago
      So they didn’t generate that money... whatever they allocated it to did.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        They generated the money by allocating it to a process that was productive. > whatever they allocated it to did. Machines are inanimate.
        onethought 6y ago
        I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Church of capitalism might have convinced to otherwise. But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ...
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at. > The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people. > But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ... If you pay me and my worker’s comp insurance then you can say “we carried 10kg up the mountain” because I wouldn’t have done it for free or without insurance.
        onethought 6y ago

kar5pt 6y ago

But if there's an alternative tax/regulation structure that can make distribution more equitable without affecting production too much, then the game can be zero sum, or close to zero sum. We don't have to choose between America and Venezuela. That's a false dichotomy.

anonymousiam 6y ago
I did not intend to draw any comparisons. My point was that the narrative about "Taking" wealth is false, and that it has been used for evil political purposes.

onethought 6y ago

Some wealth is not zero-sum. But a lot of wealth is resource based which is by definition zero-sum. But that aside: the top 1% got their by exploiting the surplus value of the 99% regardless of whether wealth was being created or moved, it definitely wasn’t that 1% creating or moving it.

igammarays 6y ago

Wealth may not be a zero-sum game, but when millions of people are struggling to pay rent, that line of argument doesn't matter.