4 ms·

Economics is not zero-sum. People working together are more productive than each person trying to subsist alone. The same goes for countries. The world economy

Economics is not zero-sum. People working together are more productive than each person trying to subsist alone. The same goes for countries. The world economy is incredibly complex, and no country can produce everything by itself.

_heimdall 2y ago
That works in the short term, but the broader game is still zero sum. There's only so many resources to go around, and at least with how we treat economics the only things of value are scarce. Innovations and cooperation can give periods of optimization so it feel like the zero sum is no longer zero sum. At the end of the day it is though, and there's probably a decent case to be made that what we're seeing happen today is due in part to us having optimized as far as we can for this round.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  How is it short-term? Division of labor does not go away. If anything, specialization and division of labor increase as the world economy becomes more and more complex and developed.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I say its short term because the inefficiencies eventually get worked out and we're back to a point where we're utilizing all the resources we can make economic use of and we again have zero sum game. The zero sum game doesn't stop, we just found a way to unlock new uses or new resources such that we temporarily just compete to claim those new resources. Think of it with land. If all the land we know of is already "owned" we must compete. If we discover new land everyone can scramble to "own" that land so it is temporarily not really zero sum. Ultimately land is finite though, and we get back to a zero sum game after a brief interlude.
    - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
      The point I'm making is that it never stops being positive-sum. It remains true that it's better for everyone if everyone works together. If you halt international trade, everyone will be poorer.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        There is presumably still a limit though. Resources can only be optimized so much, innovation and cooperation helps but that would cap out at some point.
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      Take a look at plots of land in your nearby city. Not all plots of land are equally valuable. Some are empty lots, others have skyscrapers on them that earn millions in rent. Your example of land as ultimately zero-sum misses something crucial: plots don't gain or lose value in isolation. The neighborhood and neighbors contribute strongly to each property's value. When property owners improve their land, neighbors also gain value - creating a positive-sum scenario even within your 'finite resource' example. This continuous cycle of improvement and value creation isn't just a 'temporary interlude' before returning to zero-sum; it's the persistent engine of economic growth in the west. Since Adam Smith articulated these principles of mutually beneficial exchange in 'The Wealth of Nations,' we haven't seen a return to zero-sum economics. Instead, global wealth has grown exponentially, despite population growth and resource competition. The evidence contradicts the idea that we inevitably return to zero-sum competition after brief periods of growth. I see you thinking, wait a minute, shouldn't we be looking at wealth per capita? Yes we should. That has gone up dramatically as well. Around 1776 when Adam Smith wrote his book, global GDP per Capita was $1012 (estimated, adjusted for PPP, 2011 dollars ), in 2022 Global GDP per capita was $15 212 (computed) [1] [1] World in data only covers 1820 to 2022 here -mostly because earlier statistics weren't detailed enough- but it'll have to do. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database?tab=line&time=earliest..2022 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p... ps. Not really related to this answer, but the time-lapse map is just really fascinating https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database?time=earliest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...

_heimdall 2y ago

That works in the short term, but the broader game is still zero sum. There's only so many resources to go around, and at least with how we treat economics the only things of value are scarce. Innovations and cooperation can give periods of optimization so it feel like the zero sum is no longer zero sum. At the end of the day it is though, and there's probably a decent case to be made that what we're seeing happen today is due in part to us having optimized as far as we can for this round.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
How is it short-term? Division of labor does not go away. If anything, specialization and division of labor increase as the world economy becomes more and more complex and developed.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I say its short term because the inefficiencies eventually get worked out and we're back to a point where we're utilizing all the resources we can make economic use of and we again have zero sum game. The zero sum game doesn't stop, we just found a way to unlock new uses or new resources such that we temporarily just compete to claim those new resources. Think of it with land. If all the land we know of is already "owned" we must compete. If we discover new land everyone can scramble to "own" that land so it is temporarily not really zero sum. Ultimately land is finite though, and we get back to a zero sum game after a brief interlude.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    The point I'm making is that it never stops being positive-sum. It remains true that it's better for everyone if everyone works together. If you halt international trade, everyone will be poorer.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      There is presumably still a limit though. Resources can only be optimized so much, innovation and cooperation helps but that would cap out at some point.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    Take a look at plots of land in your nearby city. Not all plots of land are equally valuable. Some are empty lots, others have skyscrapers on them that earn millions in rent. Your example of land as ultimately zero-sum misses something crucial: plots don't gain or lose value in isolation. The neighborhood and neighbors contribute strongly to each property's value. When property owners improve their land, neighbors also gain value - creating a positive-sum scenario even within your 'finite resource' example. This continuous cycle of improvement and value creation isn't just a 'temporary interlude' before returning to zero-sum; it's the persistent engine of economic growth in the west. Since Adam Smith articulated these principles of mutually beneficial exchange in 'The Wealth of Nations,' we haven't seen a return to zero-sum economics. Instead, global wealth has grown exponentially, despite population growth and resource competition. The evidence contradicts the idea that we inevitably return to zero-sum competition after brief periods of growth. I see you thinking, wait a minute, shouldn't we be looking at wealth per capita? Yes we should. That has gone up dramatically as well. Around 1776 when Adam Smith wrote his book, global GDP per Capita was $1012 (estimated, adjusted for PPP, 2011 dollars ), in 2022 Global GDP per capita was $15 212 (computed) [1] [1] World in data only covers 1820 to 2022 here -mostly because earlier statistics weren't detailed enough- but it'll have to do. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database?tab=line&time=earliest..2022 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p... ps. Not really related to this answer, but the time-lapse map is just really fascinating https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database?time=earliest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...