3 ms·

Doesn’t it though, necessarily? If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you ma

Doesn’t it though, necessarily? If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything? It could be positive sum in the long run but if you consider life to be a series of snapshots I’m not convinced that equalizing measures don’t hurt those who are, fairly or unfairly, advantaged at least momentarily.

vlovich123 5y ago
That seems like splitting hairs. Are all investments then zero sum? I lose $100, the other person gets $100. At that moment in time it’s win/lose but clearly if that were actually the case all game theory would be useless for anything involving time between action and reward/penalty.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  In the short term investments are zero sum though.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    Wikipedia disagrees with that: > Nevertheless, the situation like the stock market etc. is not a zero-sum game because investors could gain profit or loss from share price influences by profit forecasts or economic outlooks rather than gain profit from other investors' losses.
csa 5y ago
> If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything? This assumes zero-sum. Many issues are not zero-sum issues.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described?
  - csa 5y ago
    > All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described? Nice move adding “short term” in there. The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). A classic example of this is growing (or shrinking) the middle class. The US did a fairly good job of this in the 20th century. The pie got bigger and the rich got richer on an absolute level. A counter example is Japan in the recent “lost decades”. The haves basically stuck it to the youth and the have nots, and they have created quite a predicament for themselves. A once vibrant economy with a high velocity of money is a shadow of its former self. So many groups turtles down and said “I got mine”, and basically was content letting the pie shrink.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      > The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). Sure, but we're talking about the study linked, which is about perception and consequently relative status.
      - csa 5y ago
        You keep moving the target… I think if you try, you can probably come up with similar examples that meet any criteria you want to change or add.
Izkata 5y ago
> How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything? Go all the way down to the "materials and methods" section. The questions they used are mostly about loans and bonuses, so they aren't even just harming the relative standing, they're harming the absolute standing.
gnopgnip 5y ago
The economy is not a zero sum game. With a different distribution of resources people can have greater access to education, to work, better health, and a more efficient economy overall. Are you familiar with the brainteaser use to illustrate the velocity of money? "A rich tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter..."
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Relative standing between individuals is zero sum.
  - turtledove 5y ago
    Thankfully, no one living today exists in systems of two individuals. We all live in complex societies with multiple systems that can, and do, move beyond just zero sum addition.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Even in a complex society relative standing is still zero-sum.
      - kwhitefoot 5y ago
        Only if you have perfect information. And for the people for whom equality of opportunity really matters the standing of those near the top is, at least at the start, unassailable.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        It has nothing to do with information, it's simply logic. You have a line of 5 people waiting for a cashier. There's no magic. Moving someone else to the front will result in someone else having to wait. Zero sum.
convolvatron 5y ago
if I take some of your money and you have to starting buying low-end $40 dollar bottles of wine to have with your dinner I've certainly harmed you. but every night I do that 10 starving people get to eat. yes, I have harmed you. and no, maybe we don't really want to live in a place where people can take your things because they think its a good idea. but lets not pretend that its an even trade - not even close to zero sum.
wvh 5y ago
Speaking from a northern European perspective, there are a lot of systems in place that guarantee healthcare, housing and affordable or even free study opportunities. Those systems, funded by taxes, enjoy broad support, and to some extent set a (low) base level of equality and opportunity. Of course if the debate shifts into a narrative of being allowed to take from a "privileged party" – to empty their fridge sort of speak – you touch upon something visceral in people's self-preservation psyche and risk jeopardising that social net. Tolerance is generally low to provide more to those who are perceived to have failed to take advantage of those benefits and opportunities already bestowed upon them.

vlovich123 5y ago

That seems like splitting hairs. Are all investments then zero sum? I lose $100, the other person gets $100. At that moment in time it’s win/lose but clearly if that were actually the case all game theory would be useless for anything involving time between action and reward/penalty.

endisneigh 5y ago
In the short term investments are zero sum though.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  Wikipedia disagrees with that: > Nevertheless, the situation like the stock market etc. is not a zero-sum game because investors could gain profit or loss from share price influences by profit forecasts or economic outlooks rather than gain profit from other investors' losses.

csa 5y ago

> If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything? This assumes zero-sum. Many issues are not zero-sum issues.

endisneigh 5y ago
All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described?
- csa 5y ago
  > All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described? Nice move adding “short term” in there. The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). A classic example of this is growing (or shrinking) the middle class. The US did a fairly good job of this in the 20th century. The pie got bigger and the rich got richer on an absolute level. A counter example is Japan in the recent “lost decades”. The haves basically stuck it to the youth and the have nots, and they have created quite a predicament for themselves. A once vibrant economy with a high velocity of money is a shadow of its former self. So many groups turtles down and said “I got mine”, and basically was content letting the pie shrink.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    > The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). Sure, but we're talking about the study linked, which is about perception and consequently relative status.
    - csa 5y ago
      You keep moving the target… I think if you try, you can probably come up with similar examples that meet any criteria you want to change or add.

Izkata 5y ago

> How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything? Go all the way down to the "materials and methods" section. The questions they used are mostly about loans and bonuses, so they aren't even just harming the relative standing, they're harming the absolute standing.

gnopgnip 5y ago

The economy is not a zero sum game. With a different distribution of resources people can have greater access to education, to work, better health, and a more efficient economy overall. Are you familiar with the brainteaser use to illustrate the velocity of money? "A rich tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter..."

endisneigh 5y ago
Relative standing between individuals is zero sum.
- turtledove 5y ago
  Thankfully, no one living today exists in systems of two individuals. We all live in complex societies with multiple systems that can, and do, move beyond just zero sum addition.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Even in a complex society relative standing is still zero-sum.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      Only if you have perfect information. And for the people for whom equality of opportunity really matters the standing of those near the top is, at least at the start, unassailable.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        It has nothing to do with information, it's simply logic. You have a line of 5 people waiting for a cashier. There's no magic. Moving someone else to the front will result in someone else having to wait. Zero sum.

convolvatron 5y ago

if I take some of your money and you have to starting buying low-end $40 dollar bottles of wine to have with your dinner I've certainly harmed you. but every night I do that 10 starving people get to eat. yes, I have harmed you. and no, maybe we don't really want to live in a place where people can take your things because they think its a good idea. but lets not pretend that its an even trade - not even close to zero sum.

wvh 5y ago

Speaking from a northern European perspective, there are a lot of systems in place that guarantee healthcare, housing and affordable or even free study opportunities. Those systems, funded by taxes, enjoy broad support, and to some extent set a (low) base level of equality and opportunity. Of course if the debate shifts into a narrative of being allowed to take from a "privileged party" – to empty their fridge sort of speak – you touch upon something visceral in people's self-preservation psyche and risk jeopardising that social net. Tolerance is generally low to provide more to those who are perceived to have failed to take advantage of those benefits and opportunities already bestowed upon them.