5 ms·

Cooperation is never a zero sum game compared to non-cooperation. That is pretty much the definition of it. And for example free trade is a flavour of it.

belorn 2y ago
Free trade as implemented in the past seems to have been the opposite of democratic cooperation. Non-elected appointees making free trade agreements behind locked doors, which effect ignore the citizens interest and makes industry regulation irrelevant. It was free trade that enshrined current copyright laws world wide with 90 years after the authors death, which few people in the world voted for. Free trade only reflect cooperation if done transparently, chosen by the people, and which does not bypass industry regulation that people voted on. If that is not possible then the trade agreement need to reflect the different national views on things like minimum wage, environmental issues, safety standard, animal well fare, justice system, trade marks, and so on.
- safety1st 2y ago
  Further to this point, what people call "free trade" is in many cases actually not free at all. A good example of this is the bilateral relationship with Thailand, they put tons of tariffs on US imports, and the US puts very few tariffs on Thailand. Why? The rationale for this is ostensibly that the US would like to have more political influence in Southeast Asia, or hasn't totally internalized that the Cold War is over, or something. (It also so happens that Thailand places very low tariffs on Chinese goods - and their government has been currying political favor with Beijing for a long time - they are happy to enjoy unrestricted access to US markets and seem quite confident that the status quo will endure so if we are trying to buy political influence with them, we seemingly have been so toothless that it isn't even working!) The US has deals like this all over the planet where it gives other countries unrestricted access to its markets, in return for what is not clear. A lot of these deals contributed to the movement of US manufacturing to places like Thailand, which hit the US working class in the wallet very directly. Sure there are also good deals that we should preserve as-is but it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me that some of these be subjected to scrutiny and revision.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    That’s why Trump saying he’ll normalize tariffs is popular: Many Americans feel cheated, whereby they give better terms to other parties and don’t even get respect in return. So they now support a movement to mirror that behavior. This is an example of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: one side defected on a partnership for their benefit, trust collapsed, and now the originally cooperative partner is acting selfishly as well. Reciprocation is a fundamental part of relationships. The US isn’t the entity that needs to hear “cooperating is better than a zero sum mindset”. Edit to respond: Most of those people are upset about that as well: - foreign owned farmland and corporations; - foreign owned condos, etc; - inflated stock prices enriching Wall St relative to Main St; …and so on. What you’re describing is the concerns of the petite bourgeoisie who have benefitted from inflated stock prices, housing prices, and land prices. For Trump supporters, ending that distortion in the market while boosting domestic labor is a win-win.
    - PedroBatista 2y ago
      Americans will “feel cheated” again when reality arrives and learn that a huge part of their economic power is based on the world dumping trillions of dollars of their savings into us stocks, bonds and real estate, thus making the US dollar artificially strong, making it possible for Americans to buy stuff and being rich. Wait until foreign money and trust starts leaving the US to see how “betrayed” you really get, now it has been la la land, let’s wait for the next act..
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - fifilura 2y ago
      I don't think the average American knows about what tariffs USA has against Thailand. I think they feel cheated because they are told to feel cheated.
_heimdall 2y ago
Free trade is built on top of economic systems which themselves are built on top of zero sum games. The only thing we can put economic value on are goods and services that use finite resources (oil, lumber, human labor, etc). A forest, for example, has no economic value but lumber does. Free trade may optimize how goods and services are dispersed but it can't escape the zero sum game that is foundational to economics.
- bgbernovici 2y ago
  I don't think it is merely a matter of redistribution. It can escape the zero-sum game through productivity gains, technological progress, recycling, and better legislation (for example, policies that regenerate forests). It may even create new industries as replacements. Because of this, I don’t believe it is inherently a zero-sum game. > The only thing we can put economic value on are goods and services that use finite resources A software patent does not consume physical resources (aside from the initial human labor) yet holds tremendous economic value. An app can be easily duplicated, making it a virtually infinite resource, while the patent remains attached to its novel functionalities.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > It can escape the zero-sum game through productivity gains, technological progress, recycling, and better legislation Isn't that just a temporary reprieve of optimization in a broader zero sum game though? All of those feel to me like ways to take advantage of inefficiencies in the system rather than escaping the game all together.
    - fifilura 2y ago
      There is always the possibility to dig deeper mines, explore further into space or just give people the possibility to live more a comfortable life. But it is not only about that. Trade is also for comparative advantage. If you ever played settlers boardgame with more than two players you'll soon realize that whoever trades the most wins. And it does not really matter who you trade with, it is just reaping the benefits of trade instead of being stuck with 10 wood that is of low value to you but of high value to someone else.
themgt 2y ago
War is a negative sum game. Peace is a positive sum game. The reality is China is now the top trading partner for most of the world. China is producing 50% of the world's steel. China has 200x the shipbuilding capacity of the United States, etc etc. Cooperation with China is positive sum for nearly the whole world, but China as the preeminent geopolitical power is incompatible with the unipolar moment where America led the world and decided the rules of the road, and could force dissenters to comply at gunpoint. China is far more relatively powerful than the USSR ever was, much less China+Russia+Iran+North Korea combined. This is what we're seeing play out in microcosm in Ukraine, where Russia is to a large degree being backstopped by Chinese industrial and economic and diplomatic power. Hard choices are required, and there can be a lot of productive debate on the specifics of those choices. But much of "the west" seems stuck in the 1990s, where America can simply will the world it wants into existence by believing in it enough. If America and the EU had started dumping 10% of GDP into the military 5 or 15 years ago things would likely look very different now, but we didn't and no one wants to do that now either because it would be incredibly painful for millions of people who in a democracy could vote out the leaders who enacted that policy. Hard choices are required, but we're getting mainly empty rhetoric and wishcasting, by those who wish things were otherwise. I also wish things were otherwise - but that and $5 will get me a cup of Starbucks coffee. "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill
- Juliate 2y ago
  And what is striking is that, so far, China is effectively defeating the USA as the world leader, piece by piece, without firing a shot. Or at least, has a golden opportunity window to do so within the next 2/3 years, while Trump/Musk & co are dismantling the country capacity to function.
  - d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
    China has done that by ruling internally with an iron fist and ruling externally with financial influence. The U.S. is actually trying a play from the same playbook by abstaining from deploying troops. When was the last time you saw China getting torn apart in the media for failing to prop up a failed state? They're doing "greenfield" diplomacy without historical baggage.

belorn 2y ago

Free trade as implemented in the past seems to have been the opposite of democratic cooperation. Non-elected appointees making free trade agreements behind locked doors, which effect ignore the citizens interest and makes industry regulation irrelevant. It was free trade that enshrined current copyright laws world wide with 90 years after the authors death, which few people in the world voted for. Free trade only reflect cooperation if done transparently, chosen by the people, and which does not bypass industry regulation that people voted on. If that is not possible then the trade agreement need to reflect the different national views on things like minimum wage, environmental issues, safety standard, animal well fare, justice system, trade marks, and so on.

safety1st 2y ago
Further to this point, what people call "free trade" is in many cases actually not free at all. A good example of this is the bilateral relationship with Thailand, they put tons of tariffs on US imports, and the US puts very few tariffs on Thailand. Why? The rationale for this is ostensibly that the US would like to have more political influence in Southeast Asia, or hasn't totally internalized that the Cold War is over, or something. (It also so happens that Thailand places very low tariffs on Chinese goods - and their government has been currying political favor with Beijing for a long time - they are happy to enjoy unrestricted access to US markets and seem quite confident that the status quo will endure so if we are trying to buy political influence with them, we seemingly have been so toothless that it isn't even working!) The US has deals like this all over the planet where it gives other countries unrestricted access to its markets, in return for what is not clear. A lot of these deals contributed to the movement of US manufacturing to places like Thailand, which hit the US working class in the wallet very directly. Sure there are also good deals that we should preserve as-is but it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me that some of these be subjected to scrutiny and revision.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  That’s why Trump saying he’ll normalize tariffs is popular: Many Americans feel cheated, whereby they give better terms to other parties and don’t even get respect in return. So they now support a movement to mirror that behavior. This is an example of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma: one side defected on a partnership for their benefit, trust collapsed, and now the originally cooperative partner is acting selfishly as well. Reciprocation is a fundamental part of relationships. The US isn’t the entity that needs to hear “cooperating is better than a zero sum mindset”. Edit to respond: Most of those people are upset about that as well: - foreign owned farmland and corporations; - foreign owned condos, etc; - inflated stock prices enriching Wall St relative to Main St; …and so on. What you’re describing is the concerns of the petite bourgeoisie who have benefitted from inflated stock prices, housing prices, and land prices. For Trump supporters, ending that distortion in the market while boosting domestic labor is a win-win.
  - PedroBatista 2y ago
    Americans will “feel cheated” again when reality arrives and learn that a huge part of their economic power is based on the world dumping trillions of dollars of their savings into us stocks, bonds and real estate, thus making the US dollar artificially strong, making it possible for Americans to buy stuff and being rich. Wait until foreign money and trust starts leaving the US to see how “betrayed” you really get, now it has been la la land, let’s wait for the next act..
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - fifilura 2y ago
    I don't think the average American knows about what tariffs USA has against Thailand. I think they feel cheated because they are told to feel cheated.

_heimdall 2y ago

Free trade is built on top of economic systems which themselves are built on top of zero sum games. The only thing we can put economic value on are goods and services that use finite resources (oil, lumber, human labor, etc). A forest, for example, has no economic value but lumber does. Free trade may optimize how goods and services are dispersed but it can't escape the zero sum game that is foundational to economics.

bgbernovici 2y ago
I don't think it is merely a matter of redistribution. It can escape the zero-sum game through productivity gains, technological progress, recycling, and better legislation (for example, policies that regenerate forests). It may even create new industries as replacements. Because of this, I don’t believe it is inherently a zero-sum game. > The only thing we can put economic value on are goods and services that use finite resources A software patent does not consume physical resources (aside from the initial human labor) yet holds tremendous economic value. An app can be easily duplicated, making it a virtually infinite resource, while the patent remains attached to its novel functionalities.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > It can escape the zero-sum game through productivity gains, technological progress, recycling, and better legislation Isn't that just a temporary reprieve of optimization in a broader zero sum game though? All of those feel to me like ways to take advantage of inefficiencies in the system rather than escaping the game all together.
  - fifilura 2y ago
    There is always the possibility to dig deeper mines, explore further into space or just give people the possibility to live more a comfortable life. But it is not only about that. Trade is also for comparative advantage. If you ever played settlers boardgame with more than two players you'll soon realize that whoever trades the most wins. And it does not really matter who you trade with, it is just reaping the benefits of trade instead of being stuck with 10 wood that is of low value to you but of high value to someone else.

themgt 2y ago

War is a negative sum game. Peace is a positive sum game. The reality is China is now the top trading partner for most of the world. China is producing 50% of the world's steel. China has 200x the shipbuilding capacity of the United States, etc etc. Cooperation with China is positive sum for nearly the whole world, but China as the preeminent geopolitical power is incompatible with the unipolar moment where America led the world and decided the rules of the road, and could force dissenters to comply at gunpoint. China is far more relatively powerful than the USSR ever was, much less China+Russia+Iran+North Korea combined. This is what we're seeing play out in microcosm in Ukraine, where Russia is to a large degree being backstopped by Chinese industrial and economic and diplomatic power. Hard choices are required, and there can be a lot of productive debate on the specifics of those choices. But much of "the west" seems stuck in the 1990s, where America can simply will the world it wants into existence by believing in it enough. If America and the EU had started dumping 10% of GDP into the military 5 or 15 years ago things would likely look very different now, but we didn't and no one wants to do that now either because it would be incredibly painful for millions of people who in a democracy could vote out the leaders who enacted that policy. Hard choices are required, but we're getting mainly empty rhetoric and wishcasting, by those who wish things were otherwise. I also wish things were otherwise - but that and $5 will get me a cup of Starbucks coffee. "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." - Winston Churchill

Juliate 2y ago
And what is striking is that, so far, China is effectively defeating the USA as the world leader, piece by piece, without firing a shot. Or at least, has a golden opportunity window to do so within the next 2/3 years, while Trump/Musk & co are dismantling the country capacity to function.
- d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
  China has done that by ruling internally with an iron fist and ruling externally with financial influence. The U.S. is actually trying a play from the same playbook by abstaining from deploying troops. When was the last time you saw China getting torn apart in the media for failing to prop up a failed state? They're doing "greenfield" diplomacy without historical baggage.