4 ms·

It’s only zero sum if there is only a preset amount of things to own, but in fact you can own something that never existed before you owned it.

karpierz 4y ago
The wealth of the world per capita grows at an exponential, but fixed rate (~3%, plus or minus). I don't think there's a way to get around that, so that 3% is zero-sum. You can argue that the rate that our productivity can grow yearly is unbounded, but I have yet to see evidence.
- samatman 4y ago
  You can only describe a growing system as zero-sum by abusing the definition of the term.
  - karpierz 4y ago
    Why? Zero-sum just refers to the allocation of a bounded quantity; growth is a quantity. If the derivative of a value is bounded, then the delta of that value over time is bounded. If one new oil well is discovered every year, then you can say that who own that growth is zero-sum. You can also say that the amount anyone can increase their wealth via oil wells by is zero-sum. Sum over the growth of capital over the year, and you find that the allocation of the ownership of growth is also zero-sum. And so are the proceeds of that yearly growth. If your claim that the growth of the world's productivity on a yearly basis is unbounded, then sure, zero-sum isn't an applicable term. If your claim is that you can generate growth without hampering the growth of others; that's true to a point. Someone needs to sweep the floors and take out the trash. You can make robots do it, but those robots need to be made and maintained by someone. Someone needs to make food as you do it. Someone is on "robot design duty" and someone is on "farming duty". The person on "farming duty" can't stop without someone coming in to replace them. But I haven't been able to see any evidence of that claim being true.
belter 4y ago
It's a zero sum because the persons and financial resources buying what you have to sell is a finite number. If they buy from me they probably wont buy from you. This is independent of the relative merits of the products we are both selling. Maybe I forced my products to be shown in the major television channels, because I also own the television channels and you dont.
- solveit 4y ago
  New persons are born every day and financial resources are a bookkeeping tool. If I make something new and you make something new then we can trade our products and we both gained without anyone losing out. It is not true to say the world is zero-sum.
  - belter 4y ago
    The Federal Reserve who controls the M1 supply would like a word with you.:-) There is a limited amount of goods and services you can sell to the inhabitants of a planet with a population of 7.7 Billion. What if the planet would have only a population of 7? Each person owning one of the 7 continents? Let's say the persons owning Africa and the person owning North America, due to some meteorological disaster, and unfortunate investments, had to sell their respective continents to the hotshot owning Europe? If the money supply is infinite, then has no value. Now from the finite money supply in the world who is going to gain the most?
    - thethimble 4y ago
      You’re being downvoted because you're conflating two concepts that are related but not the same: the money supply and economic output (GDP). Economic output is non-zero sum. Consumption/production scales up and down elastically. The money supply is adjusted independently in order to drive “ideal” output growth while maintaining “ideal” inflation levels.
      - belter 4y ago
        Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. But you fail to note the creation of a market happens by destroying another. Amazon vs Book Shops, Uber vs Taxis, Cars vs Faster Horses, Netflix vs Theater Industry and DVD Rentals.[2] There is a limit of resources and economic output per year, the ones owning the more productive processes will get a progressive bigger share of the output. More and more, lots of activities are zero-sum and the long term is a complete zero-sum. [3] It's not a view from mainstream economists, because many do not want to be seen as heirs to Karl Marx ( an Economist let's not forget, not a politician). It's also a discourse popular from a certain political current, that spouses the "we can all benefit mantra". I prefer to use Constrain Theory [1], and be reminded that if somebody creates a more efficient Amazon, faster, cheaper, better then Amazon will not prosper. If somebody opens a new service, or creates a new product, there will less disposable income from the customers of this product to shop at Amazon. Reminds me of a story, normally told with several variations so my details are not exact. When Henry Ford II toured some factory, he taunted some workers with the fact increased Robotic Automation would make Ford less dependent on the workers. The workers replied asking Ford how many cars he was expecting the Robots would buy? [1] "Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist": https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist... [2] "Capitalism: A zero-sum game": https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/capitalism-a-zero-sum-game-110050700073_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/capitalism... [3] "The Zero-Sum Economy": https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/zero-sum-economy-fuels-high-inequality-by-adair-turner-2018-08?barrier=accesspaylog https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/zero-sum-econom...

karpierz 4y ago

The wealth of the world per capita grows at an exponential, but fixed rate (~3%, plus or minus). I don't think there's a way to get around that, so that 3% is zero-sum. You can argue that the rate that our productivity can grow yearly is unbounded, but I have yet to see evidence.

samatman 4y ago
You can only describe a growing system as zero-sum by abusing the definition of the term.
- karpierz 4y ago
  Why? Zero-sum just refers to the allocation of a bounded quantity; growth is a quantity. If the derivative of a value is bounded, then the delta of that value over time is bounded. If one new oil well is discovered every year, then you can say that who own that growth is zero-sum. You can also say that the amount anyone can increase their wealth via oil wells by is zero-sum. Sum over the growth of capital over the year, and you find that the allocation of the ownership of growth is also zero-sum. And so are the proceeds of that yearly growth. If your claim that the growth of the world's productivity on a yearly basis is unbounded, then sure, zero-sum isn't an applicable term. If your claim is that you can generate growth without hampering the growth of others; that's true to a point. Someone needs to sweep the floors and take out the trash. You can make robots do it, but those robots need to be made and maintained by someone. Someone needs to make food as you do it. Someone is on "robot design duty" and someone is on "farming duty". The person on "farming duty" can't stop without someone coming in to replace them. But I haven't been able to see any evidence of that claim being true.

belter 4y ago

It's a zero sum because the persons and financial resources buying what you have to sell is a finite number. If they buy from me they probably wont buy from you. This is independent of the relative merits of the products we are both selling. Maybe I forced my products to be shown in the major television channels, because I also own the television channels and you dont.

solveit 4y ago
New persons are born every day and financial resources are a bookkeeping tool. If I make something new and you make something new then we can trade our products and we both gained without anyone losing out. It is not true to say the world is zero-sum.
- belter 4y ago
  The Federal Reserve who controls the M1 supply would like a word with you.:-) There is a limited amount of goods and services you can sell to the inhabitants of a planet with a population of 7.7 Billion. What if the planet would have only a population of 7? Each person owning one of the 7 continents? Let's say the persons owning Africa and the person owning North America, due to some meteorological disaster, and unfortunate investments, had to sell their respective continents to the hotshot owning Europe? If the money supply is infinite, then has no value. Now from the finite money supply in the world who is going to gain the most?
  - thethimble 4y ago
    You’re being downvoted because you're conflating two concepts that are related but not the same: the money supply and economic output (GDP). Economic output is non-zero sum. Consumption/production scales up and down elastically. The money supply is adjusted independently in order to drive “ideal” output growth while maintaining “ideal” inflation levels.
    - belter 4y ago
      Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. But you fail to note the creation of a market happens by destroying another. Amazon vs Book Shops, Uber vs Taxis, Cars vs Faster Horses, Netflix vs Theater Industry and DVD Rentals.[2] There is a limit of resources and economic output per year, the ones owning the more productive processes will get a progressive bigger share of the output. More and more, lots of activities are zero-sum and the long term is a complete zero-sum. [3] It's not a view from mainstream economists, because many do not want to be seen as heirs to Karl Marx ( an Economist let's not forget, not a politician). It's also a discourse popular from a certain political current, that spouses the "we can all benefit mantra". I prefer to use Constrain Theory [1], and be reminded that if somebody creates a more efficient Amazon, faster, cheaper, better then Amazon will not prosper. If somebody opens a new service, or creates a new product, there will less disposable income from the customers of this product to shop at Amazon. Reminds me of a story, normally told with several variations so my details are not exact. When Henry Ford II toured some factory, he taunted some workers with the fact increased Robotic Automation would make Ford less dependent on the workers. The workers replied asking Ford how many cars he was expecting the Robots would buy? [1] "Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist": https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist... [2] "Capitalism: A zero-sum game": https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/capitalism-a-zero-sum-game-110050700073_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/capitalism... [3] "The Zero-Sum Economy": https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/zero-sum-economy-fuels-high-inequality-by-adair-turner-2018-08?barrier=accesspaylog https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/zero-sum-econom...