6 ms·

In an imaginary situation where the total money supply is distributed (unevenly) across all citizens, then yes, the situation is technically zero-sum. But that

In an imaginary situation where the total money supply is distributed (unevenly) across all citizens, then yes, the situation is technically zero-sum. But that’s not really how things work. Between investments, purchasing power, ability to afford higher quality goods, etc. the wealthy have significant additional advantages that make the system far from zero-sum. But even in the imaginary setup, it’s non-linear in terms of quality of life. That is, wealth redistribution can have a huge positive effect on the poor and an insignificant negative effect on the wealthy.

Proven 4y ago
[dead]
teakettle42 4y ago
The “advantaged ingroup” presented in the study is not “the wealthy”, but rather “white Americans, people without a disability, men, and non-felons”. They’re not addressing the question of “the wealthy”.
- teucris 4y ago
  Sure. I’m not going to defend the study. My critique was aimed at the idea that the concept of a non-zero sum situation didn’t exist.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    In a supply constrained economy (which USA currently is, can see this from inflation), the supply of goods is zero sum. The government printing more money and giving to other people makes the money you have worth less, so even if the government gave you as much money as before you will now effectively get less from the government. The "economy is not zero sum" argument comes from other parts. If you work harder and produce more goods than before, then that is not zero sum, since you added goods and therefore didn't reduce the worth of others money. But this is a very different scenario.
    - teucris 4y ago
      I agree quantitive easing is problematic. Also agree that production isn’t zero-sum. But those with capital can extract value from production through investments, making capital accrual a compounding advantage.
      - imtringued 4y ago
        Quantitative easing is an irrelevant bandaid. What's your answer to preventing people from amassing ever greater division of labor coupons that they don't need?
    - imtringued 4y ago
      Ah yes the mythical government monery printing fairytale. Have you ever considered that negative yields are normal and that money cannot reprrsent negative yields directly and therefore must let the unit of account change as the bandaid for what is simply a technical problem? Oh right I also forgot that people have an inherent desire to lie to themselves. They would rather see the value of their money erode without their knowledge than see their money disappear (at a slower rate) but maintain its value. By the way. A lot of economic activity appears to just monetize what is or was already there. Like hoe real estate keeps getting more expensive.
ImprobableTruth 4y ago
Resource redistribution is pretty zero sum in reality. Investments are kinda gray, they (usually) have long term positive gains, but come with short-term costs and opportunity costs. I don't know what "the wealthy have [...] advantages that make the system far from zero-sum" is supposed to mean or how purchasing power is supposed to factor into this. You can say that redistributing resources is just despite that, but the author framing it as a 'win-win' situation that advantaged groups are just too ableist/racist/sexist to accept is absurd.
- teucris 4y ago
  To be clear, I’m not defending the study, but rather the notion that the situation is zero-sum. > I don't know what "the wealthy have [...] advantages that make the system far from zero-sum" I list examples of two positive-sum advantages for those with significant capital: 1. capital control enables collection of value from production. You might say that advantage comes with risk and is therefore it balances out. But the opportunity to invest in the first place is an advantage, and if done wisely, the risk of investment negatively impacting quality of life can be minimized. 2. Positive feedback effects of having capital, such as buying a more reliable car which ultimately saves you money. “Purchasing power” was the wrong wording. I meant something closer to “leverage”.
imtringued 4y ago
Sorry to burst your bubble but money is very unevenly distributed and it is usually distributed away from where it is needed the most because the economic system is set up to subsidize the owning class. Because the rich are powerful interest groups they get to vote money into their pockets redistributing money away from the general population who then demands money into its pockets via welfare to cancel out the unfairness. You could argue that the rich are bribing the government to get more money and then the government must bribe the rest of the population so they look away from an obviously morally questionable political system.

Proven 4y ago

[dead]

teakettle42 4y ago

The “advantaged ingroup” presented in the study is not “the wealthy”, but rather “white Americans, people without a disability, men, and non-felons”. They’re not addressing the question of “the wealthy”.

teucris 4y ago
Sure. I’m not going to defend the study. My critique was aimed at the idea that the concept of a non-zero sum situation didn’t exist.
- Jensson 4y ago
  In a supply constrained economy (which USA currently is, can see this from inflation), the supply of goods is zero sum. The government printing more money and giving to other people makes the money you have worth less, so even if the government gave you as much money as before you will now effectively get less from the government. The "economy is not zero sum" argument comes from other parts. If you work harder and produce more goods than before, then that is not zero sum, since you added goods and therefore didn't reduce the worth of others money. But this is a very different scenario.
  - teucris 4y ago
    I agree quantitive easing is problematic. Also agree that production isn’t zero-sum. But those with capital can extract value from production through investments, making capital accrual a compounding advantage.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      Quantitative easing is an irrelevant bandaid. What's your answer to preventing people from amassing ever greater division of labor coupons that they don't need?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Ah yes the mythical government monery printing fairytale. Have you ever considered that negative yields are normal and that money cannot reprrsent negative yields directly and therefore must let the unit of account change as the bandaid for what is simply a technical problem? Oh right I also forgot that people have an inherent desire to lie to themselves. They would rather see the value of their money erode without their knowledge than see their money disappear (at a slower rate) but maintain its value. By the way. A lot of economic activity appears to just monetize what is or was already there. Like hoe real estate keeps getting more expensive.

ImprobableTruth 4y ago

Resource redistribution is pretty zero sum in reality. Investments are kinda gray, they (usually) have long term positive gains, but come with short-term costs and opportunity costs. I don't know what "the wealthy have [...] advantages that make the system far from zero-sum" is supposed to mean or how purchasing power is supposed to factor into this. You can say that redistributing resources is just despite that, but the author framing it as a 'win-win' situation that advantaged groups are just too ableist/racist/sexist to accept is absurd.

teucris 4y ago
To be clear, I’m not defending the study, but rather the notion that the situation is zero-sum. > I don't know what "the wealthy have [...] advantages that make the system far from zero-sum" I list examples of two positive-sum advantages for those with significant capital: 1. capital control enables collection of value from production. You might say that advantage comes with risk and is therefore it balances out. But the opportunity to invest in the first place is an advantage, and if done wisely, the risk of investment negatively impacting quality of life can be minimized. 2. Positive feedback effects of having capital, such as buying a more reliable car which ultimately saves you money. “Purchasing power” was the wrong wording. I meant something closer to “leverage”.

imtringued 4y ago

Sorry to burst your bubble but money is very unevenly distributed and it is usually distributed away from where it is needed the most because the economic system is set up to subsidize the owning class. Because the rich are powerful interest groups they get to vote money into their pockets redistributing money away from the general population who then demands money into its pockets via welfare to cancel out the unfairness. You could argue that the rich are bribing the government to get more money and then the government must bribe the rest of the population so they look away from an obviously morally questionable political system.