5 ms·

The world is not zero sum! The average human is better off now then they were any number of decades ago, and things have improved for those on the bottom even m

The world is not zero sum! The average human is better off now then they were any number of decades ago, and things have improved for those on the bottom even more. 38% of the world lived in extreme poverty in 1990, by 2019 that number was down to 9%. In that same time frame access to basic sanitation increased from 32% to 56%, life expectancy increased from 64 years to 71 years, and so on with various of quality of life statistics. Designing an economic system for "fairness" is a horrible idea. I would rather live in an economic system with high inequality, high standards of living, and high social mobility, than in a system with low inequality, low standards of living, and low social mobility. Inequality is bad in the same way that debt or medicine is bad: the danger is in the dose. A society with extreme inequality is probably screwed, but a society with moderate inequality is not necessarily worse off than a society with low inequality. Wealth taxes have been tried many times, they don't work very well. > In the natural world hoarding works in the opposite way. A stash of nuts doesn't magically grow. Quite the opposite. Real effort has to be expended to preserve the stash. So you would prefer to spend your time roaming the forest in proletariat ecstasy looking for more nuts, rather than using the nuts to plant some trees?

cycomanic 3y ago
The whole point being made in the video (which I think very few here actually watched) is that the only ones who benefit from this contracting/expanding are the top 1% (realistically more like 0.1%). If the economy is growing (not a zero sum game as you say), but the economic ability to own assets is decreasing then you are creating a situation where after some time all assets are owned by only very few. I'm not sure if you consider that a good basis for society. I certainly would prefer my children not to live in a cyberpunk distopia.
tmnvix 3y ago
> So you would prefer to spend your time roaming the forest in proletariat ecstasy looking for more nuts, rather than using the nuts to plant some trees? Planting trees would be productive activity, not hoarding. This is exactly the type of behaviour that should be rewarded. Of course, we need people to have access to resources in order to engage in productive activity (in this case land). Regarding your comment about the world not being zero sum, I agree to an extent (hence my comment that it is largely zero sum). Obviously we can - through productive activity - 'create wealth' in many ways. Another commenter gave the example of turning sand into silicon chips. My concern though - and where I think a zero sum situation exists - is with those resources that are fundamental to security, agency, and well being like land and clean water. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where they live to 120 but all of those resources are already hoarded and the prices are so high that they have little to no chance of getting a share. A world where only a few have access to use natural resources for their own benefit is a crappy world however you look at it. > Wealth taxes have been tried many times, they don't work very well. There's a whole debate to be had here, but I think I'll just say that I don't think that this is the case.

cycomanic 3y ago

The whole point being made in the video (which I think very few here actually watched) is that the only ones who benefit from this contracting/expanding are the top 1% (realistically more like 0.1%). If the economy is growing (not a zero sum game as you say), but the economic ability to own assets is decreasing then you are creating a situation where after some time all assets are owned by only very few. I'm not sure if you consider that a good basis for society. I certainly would prefer my children not to live in a cyberpunk distopia.

tmnvix 3y ago

> So you would prefer to spend your time roaming the forest in proletariat ecstasy looking for more nuts, rather than using the nuts to plant some trees? Planting trees would be productive activity, not hoarding. This is exactly the type of behaviour that should be rewarded. Of course, we need people to have access to resources in order to engage in productive activity (in this case land). Regarding your comment about the world not being zero sum, I agree to an extent (hence my comment that it is largely zero sum). Obviously we can - through productive activity - 'create wealth' in many ways. Another commenter gave the example of turning sand into silicon chips. My concern though - and where I think a zero sum situation exists - is with those resources that are fundamental to security, agency, and well being like land and clean water. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where they live to 120 but all of those resources are already hoarded and the prices are so high that they have little to no chance of getting a share. A world where only a few have access to use natural resources for their own benefit is a crappy world however you look at it. > Wealth taxes have been tried many times, they don't work very well. There's a whole debate to be had here, but I think I'll just say that I don't think that this is the case.