3 ms·

Wealth isn't zero-sum. Your earnings aren't extracted at a cost to someone else.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Measurably untrue for equity ownership which is a prerequisite for “wealth” in that you need to have undifferentiated ownership of assets that increase in value. Equity in a for profit corporation is fixed to the current round of funding with theoretical increases at certain intervals. These increases very specifically reduce the existing size of the “wedge of the pie” - aka takes from and redistributes ownership in the new pie size. This is called “Dilution” and we’re just told it’s how the game works. Note that the theoretical expectation is that the overall “value” stays the same despite literally being called “less than.” However, we know that those valuations are not rooted in any type of mathematical or otherwise natural function like let’s say the gravitational constant, that is unchanged and unmoved by exogenous circumstances, therefore the fact of splitting the pie Redistributes functional ownership, irrespective of what the value theoretically is. you’ll also note that the specific function of private equity is to ensure the retention and growth of equity ownership over all goals. So specific to the mechanisms within the commerce system, specifically ownership, they are not only functionally but mathematically zero-sum.
patrickmay 3y ago
Exactly. Too many commenters here are ignoring (or unaware of) the fact that wealth is created.
yoyohello13 3y ago
TIL, exploitive labor practices are not a cost to someone else.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  Most wealth is not derived from exploitive labor practices. The poor developers being shackled and slavedriven at Meta put $150 billion in Zuckerbergs pocket? Absurd.
mwigdahl 3y ago
You are correct, economic activity under capitalism is positive-sum. And that makes the exploitative behavior of megacorporations and their leaders that much worse. The economic pie is growing rapidly, but ruthless cost-focused management that treats employees as "resources" keeps unskilled laborers continually on the edge. The larger the organization, the more the leaders can insulate themselves from the human reality on the ground, which in turn makes it easier to justify policies that fail to treat workers with basic human decency, let alone provide them the opportunity to share in the the economic surplus they produce. It takes work and discipline for leaders to avoid this without external coercion, and that is in demonstrably short supply.
deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
Clearly wealth can be zero sum, and it can be varying shades of grey. When employees of a small business see their company tank while being forced to hold their shares for a year under a SPAC acquisition, while the founders and SPAC sell at a overvalued projected cost — nothing productive results and who holds the sum? I’d wager a number of people here have experienced that personally. And when Bezos wants diapers.com…?

Measurably untrue for equity ownership which is a prerequisite for “wealth” in that you need to have undifferentiated ownership of assets that increase in value. Equity in a for profit corporation is fixed to the current round of funding with theoretical increases at certain intervals. These increases very specifically reduce the existing size of the “wedge of the pie” - aka takes from and redistributes ownership in the new pie size. This is called “Dilution” and we’re just told it’s how the game works. Note that the theoretical expectation is that the overall “value” stays the same despite literally being called “less than.” However, we know that those valuations are not rooted in any type of mathematical or otherwise natural function like let’s say the gravitational constant, that is unchanged and unmoved by exogenous circumstances, therefore the fact of splitting the pie Redistributes functional ownership, irrespective of what the value theoretically is. you’ll also note that the specific function of private equity is to ensure the retention and growth of equity ownership over all goals. So specific to the mechanisms within the commerce system, specifically ownership, they are not only functionally but mathematically zero-sum.

patrickmay 3y ago

Exactly. Too many commenters here are ignoring (or unaware of) the fact that wealth is created.

yoyohello13 3y ago

TIL, exploitive labor practices are not a cost to someone else.

missedthecue 3y ago
Most wealth is not derived from exploitive labor practices. The poor developers being shackled and slavedriven at Meta put $150 billion in Zuckerbergs pocket? Absurd.

mwigdahl 3y ago

You are correct, economic activity under capitalism is positive-sum. And that makes the exploitative behavior of megacorporations and their leaders that much worse. The economic pie is growing rapidly, but ruthless cost-focused management that treats employees as "resources" keeps unskilled laborers continually on the edge. The larger the organization, the more the leaders can insulate themselves from the human reality on the ground, which in turn makes it easier to justify policies that fail to treat workers with basic human decency, let alone provide them the opportunity to share in the the economic surplus they produce. It takes work and discipline for leaders to avoid this without external coercion, and that is in demonstrably short supply.

deepsquirrelnet 3y ago

Clearly wealth can be zero sum, and it can be varying shades of grey. When employees of a small business see their company tank while being forced to hold their shares for a year under a SPAC acquisition, while the founders and SPAC sell at a overvalued projected cost — nothing productive results and who holds the sum? I’d wager a number of people here have experienced that personally. And when Bezos wants diapers.com…?