3 ms·

Yeah but the material conditions of an individual's life are determined by the goods and services they have, not by the total amount of goods and services that

Yeah but the material conditions of an individual's life are determined by the goods and services they have, not by the total amount of goods and services that exist in the world. Moreover, certain material conditions--safety from harm, freedom of expression, and the political power to maintain those things--absolutely do not increase in some global sense the way that economic output does. Consequently, it's the distribution of wealth that determines the quality of an individual's life, and that's what concerns me. So no, I don't give a fig if "total wealth" whatever that is is somehow going up in aggregate, not if it's not being shared more uniformly.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> Yeah but the material conditions of an individual's life are determined by the goods and services they have, not by the total amount of goods and services that exist in the world. That's obviously why distribution matters as well as total production (or aggregate utility), but fixed-sum means that distribution is the only thing subject to change, and that for someone to gain someone else must lose equally. (There's also an argument that things get closer to fixed sum in utility terms if you first lift everyone out of extreme poverty, because relative wealth/deprivation becomes a much more significant source of utility/disutility than absolute wealth is of utility once you are beyond extreme poverty, but even there its much more complex than fixed sum.) > Moreover, certain material conditions--safety from harm, freedom of expression, and the political power to maintain those things--absolutely do not increase in some global sense the way that economic output does. They certainly don't increase in lockstep with economic output, either globally or locally, but neither are they fixed-sum, where for someone to have more someone else must have less in the same degree (except maybe "political power").
- dventimi 2y ago
  > for someone to gain someone else must lose equally Oh, you can gain love, satisfaction, respect, and all the other things that money can't buy and it doesn't cost anyone else a thing, but the minute you gain something that money can buy, you've gained a little bit of trading power within the economy, which everyone else has lost. > They certainly don't increase in lockstep with economic output, either globally or locally, but neither are they fixed-sum, where for someone to have more someone else must have less in the same degree (except maybe "political power"). Safety from harm and freedom of expression, perhaps, don't come at the cost of others, but those examples were meant to illustrate that some things of value--economic value even--truly are "fixed" and do not increase simply because of progress and innovation. But "political power" is the biggie, anyway. That's the most important one. That's what extremely wealthy people are buying. It's not yachts and mansions. It's political power, which has enormous implications for the rest of us.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Yeah but the material conditions of an individual's life are determined by the goods and services they have, not by the total amount of goods and services that exist in the world. That's obviously why distribution matters as well as total production (or aggregate utility), but fixed-sum means that distribution is the only thing subject to change, and that for someone to gain someone else must lose equally. (There's also an argument that things get closer to fixed sum in utility terms if you first lift everyone out of extreme poverty, because relative wealth/deprivation becomes a much more significant source of utility/disutility than absolute wealth is of utility once you are beyond extreme poverty, but even there its much more complex than fixed sum.) > Moreover, certain material conditions--safety from harm, freedom of expression, and the political power to maintain those things--absolutely do not increase in some global sense the way that economic output does. They certainly don't increase in lockstep with economic output, either globally or locally, but neither are they fixed-sum, where for someone to have more someone else must have less in the same degree (except maybe "political power").

dventimi 2y ago
> for someone to gain someone else must lose equally Oh, you can gain love, satisfaction, respect, and all the other things that money can't buy and it doesn't cost anyone else a thing, but the minute you gain something that money can buy, you've gained a little bit of trading power within the economy, which everyone else has lost. > They certainly don't increase in lockstep with economic output, either globally or locally, but neither are they fixed-sum, where for someone to have more someone else must have less in the same degree (except maybe "political power"). Safety from harm and freedom of expression, perhaps, don't come at the cost of others, but those examples were meant to illustrate that some things of value--economic value even--truly are "fixed" and do not increase simply because of progress and innovation. But "political power" is the biggie, anyway. That's the most important one. That's what extremely wealthy people are buying. It's not yachts and mansions. It's political power, which has enormous implications for the rest of us.