4 ms·

No, it's not. A full field of research can never be adequately reflected with a single term. Nor did I ever claim that it was Zero Sum at any point. I just poi

by y4mi 5y ago

No, it's not. A full field of research can never be adequately reflected with a single term. Nor did I ever claim that it was Zero Sum at any point. I just pointed out that there are, by necessity, always "losers". That doesn't make it a zero sum game, as the values can be different and have very confusing side effects.

RandomLensman 5y ago
Not sure there is a strict necessity for "losers", either, if you want to go to positive sum, but claim some gain more than others lose. Situations where in a small world both sides gain (ie no loser) are conceivable. Edit: I flatly reject the notion that strictly someone's gain requires someone's (non-proportinate) loss, ie that there are always "losers". That notion is also not really a current macroeconomic position.
cornel_io 5y ago
There are not always losers, though, in a very real sense. If I have nothing but 100 gallons of water and you have nothing but 100 pounds of meat, then an exchange of some amount at the margins benefits both of us in every way. If we set the amounts that we trade carefully enough, then we'll both win by the exact same amount (however we measure that in our own heads), and it's really hard to call anyone in that situation a "loser". Presumably what you're referring to is that in a realistic market, there are also tons of other people who are willing to swap their wares, and maybe they'll offer me something better for a gallon of water than a pound of meat. So sure, I could be taking a sub-optimal deal by trading with you at the rate you want. But the trade is still positive-sum, no loser in sight. In an efficient market most trade is net beneficial to everyone and doesn't necessarily have losers, including when you start layering in credit and derivatives and inflation and velocity of money and whatnot, even if it gets really complicated. That is possible because we all have slightly different self-valuations of money, goods, and risk at different scales, and the markets let you trade each for the other until you've self-optimized your portfolio blend. That's not to say you can't come up with scenarios where there are unambiguous losers, but it's definitely not some law of economics or anything like that.
- y4mi 5y ago
  This discussion is quiet far from what I've initially said from my perspective, nonetheless... > it's definitely not some law of economics or anything like that. This is a no true scotsman fallacy. It's true that this is not a preordained truth, but you'll realistically always have someone at a loss for as long as resources are limited. And if you can't see one than you're just ignoring the one's at a loss as irrelevant. I.e. descendents with natural resources or even non-human entities in the context of meat production etc

by y4mi 5y ago

RandomLensman 5y ago

Not sure there is a strict necessity for "losers", either, if you want to go to positive sum, but claim some gain more than others lose. Situations where in a small world both sides gain (ie no loser) are conceivable. Edit: I flatly reject the notion that strictly someone's gain requires someone's (non-proportinate) loss, ie that there are always "losers". That notion is also not really a current macroeconomic position.

cornel_io 5y ago

There are not always losers, though, in a very real sense. If I have nothing but 100 gallons of water and you have nothing but 100 pounds of meat, then an exchange of some amount at the margins benefits both of us in every way. If we set the amounts that we trade carefully enough, then we'll both win by the exact same amount (however we measure that in our own heads), and it's really hard to call anyone in that situation a "loser". Presumably what you're referring to is that in a realistic market, there are also tons of other people who are willing to swap their wares, and maybe they'll offer me something better for a gallon of water than a pound of meat. So sure, I could be taking a sub-optimal deal by trading with you at the rate you want. But the trade is still positive-sum, no loser in sight. In an efficient market most trade is net beneficial to everyone and doesn't necessarily have losers, including when you start layering in credit and derivatives and inflation and velocity of money and whatnot, even if it gets really complicated. That is possible because we all have slightly different self-valuations of money, goods, and risk at different scales, and the markets let you trade each for the other until you've self-optimized your portfolio blend. That's not to say you can't come up with scenarios where there are unambiguous losers, but it's definitely not some law of economics or anything like that.

y4mi 5y ago
This discussion is quiet far from what I've initially said from my perspective, nonetheless... > it's definitely not some law of economics or anything like that. This is a no true scotsman fallacy. It's true that this is not a preordained truth, but you'll realistically always have someone at a loss for as long as resources are limited. And if you can't see one than you're just ignoring the one's at a loss as irrelevant. I.e. descendents with natural resources or even non-human entities in the context of meat production etc