3 ms·

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

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”.