8 ms·

Welcome to the Zero Sum Era. Now How Do We Get Out?

hiatus 2y ago
gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/asia/trump-zero-sum-world.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E4.tc8E.GfgFPgW_gzAH&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/asia/trump-zero-sum...
- shdzsm 2y ago
  [dead]
doinkmun 2y ago
From a zero-sum perspective, wouldn't it be an effective tactic to convince your competitors to avoid zero-sum thought? It's also worth remembering that in democracy, the demographics of voting blocs necessarily creates a zero-sum distribution of power.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Depends. Do you actually live in a zero-sum world, or not? If you live in a zero-sum world, that's an interesting tactic. It might be effective. If you don't, though, then you opened your opponent up to a better way of doing things, while you're still stuck in a less optimal way. That's a losing move.
  - doinkmun 2y ago
    Good point. Is there in fact a limited supply of energy and physical materials? If so, the universe is finite and thus zero-sum as bounded by the efficiency of use. Do humans asses things more through impartial objectivity or via relativistic comparison? If yes to finite resources and relative assesment, we live in a zero-sum world. If no to either, we do not (ie, if we have functionally unlimited resource abundance, or if we don't care about how we are situated relative to our neighbors).
cjs_ac 2y ago
Let's consider a positive-sum economy. Over time, the total amount of value in the economy grows. That additional value comes from innovation, but whose innovation? I grew up in Australia, in the state of New South Wales. In the end-of-secondary-school exams, the most popular subject in NSW is English, because it's compulsory. The second most popular subject is Business Studies. There's an awful lot of entrepreneurial spirit there. But the reality of the Australian economy is that its complexity is declining: the economic activity is ever more concentrated into fewer and fewer industries. Sure, there are some industries, like hospitality, where you can start your own business, but the bulk of the economy is dominated by a small number of large companies: a handful of mining companies, two supermarkets, and so on. Every now and then, there's a new government initiative, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme or the opening up of vocational training to private providers, and a few years later, there's a big scandal, because most of the companies providing these services turn out to be fraudulent. So much of Australia's economic activity is tied up in pre-existing businesses that it seems that the only way to do anything novel is to rip off the government. There was a time when Australians started innovative businesses: Victa lawn mowers, the Hills Hoist clothes line, and so on. Ford Australia and Holden (owned by General Motors) competed to build the best cars for the Australian market. This was a time of optimism and increasing living standards, when impoverished workers were enticed to emigrate to Australia by the Great Australian Dream: a detached house and a car of your very own! But now that airfares a cheap, talented Australians emigrate to the UK, the US, or the EU, and do their innovative work there. Thanks to tax breaks, the best possible investment you can make in Australia is to own someone else's home. The population is increasing faster than ever, but housebuilding is slowing down. The housing crisis has been building for twenty years now; anger turns to ennui. A belief that Australia has no future is slowly starting to coalesce. Australia has entered a zero sum death spiral. The solution is to create an economy where the old bootstraps analogy actually holds: where simple, honest hard work actually improves one's lot in life. An economy where anyone can innovate, not just university graduates with millions in venture capital funding: the economy that the Baby Boomers grew up in. If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first.
- doinkmun 2y ago
  "If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first." Funnily enough, zero-sum thinking would provide a solution for this. In order for your society to thrive, opportunity must be created. If nobody knows how to create sustainable (read, not based on subsidy) opportunity, it can always be manufactured at the cost of a target group. (Ethnic groups, 'the rich', other countries, etc. Pick your favorite.) In terms of a housing shortage, you can create housing for your 'team' by taking existing houses from those who aren't on your 'team'. In business or in academia, you can force hiring or admittance practices/rules/quotas that prioritize your 'team' over other 'teams'. There lies the crux. There is always gain to be had by those who simply choose to take it. Even the promise of a world order where such choices are unthinkable isn't protected. All it takes is one group who chooses to prioritize themselves, and then if the remaining group is not strong or numerous enough to fight them off, a new order is established and equity is abolished in favor of a new dominance hierarchy.
harimau777 2y ago
Isn't the problem that life is in fact zero sum? Most of the really important things (land, attractive spouses, desirable jobs, etc.) are extremely limited resources. I don't see how we move past zero sum when there is not enough of the things that people are fighting over to go around.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  We inherited an earth stacked with tons of low entropy, and a sun providing us with 4 billion years of low entropy in reserve before we need to leave Earth. Carefully managed, this is not locally zero sum, and we can all benefit. Unfortunately, that doesn't satisfy some people, and they use their resources to disproportionately acquire even more resources until the peasants are left fighting for scrap.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    The amount of sunlight is not the zero-sum to worry about. For each of us individually the number of hours that we will spend breathing is limited. Life is therefore absolutely zero-sum, no matter what various sophists try to sell. What they try to sell is how one spends those limited hours, and more specifically - who do we serve in that time. Those few do have the illusion that life is not a zero-sum game. Until death presents them with the winning argument.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      That's not what zero sum means. It's not zero sum just because you eventually die. Every person has different goals and it's entirely possible for them to come out ahead with respect to their goals.
- mech975 2y ago
  Life isn't zero sum. If you look at the state of civilization now vs 2000 years ago, it's clear that we've played enough positive-sum activities to create much more wealth for the average person.
phendrenad2 2y ago
This feels very much like someone walking into a room with a complicated, but currently broken, machine, noticing that one cord isn't plugged in, and loudly announcing that you solved the problem before you even tried that cord. Oh duh, why didn't we think of that slaps forehead. If we all deny reality and pretend that life is an infinite-sum game then we can have most of the benefits of a true infinite-sum game. This simply doesn't stand up to game theory, because the spoils of defection are large and you can't stop people from doing it.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
We let the authoritarians send all their assets in a final meatwave. oh we learn to recognize the not surplus bribed tribal mode of humanity as the danger it is to stability of society. Less idealization and startrek, more actually taking into account what represents under stress. The degrowth we yearned for has arrived .
ashoeafoot 2y ago
The zero sum world is one of constant worldwars, and for little cause. Nazi Germanys wars and horrors of conquest were byproduct of a zero sum, colonial world order, were the strong regularly starved the weak out. Nobody in europe has starved since those days and to bring them back ,is to be unaware of what beast you call into the circle.

gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/asia/trump-zero-sum-world.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E4.tc8E.GfgFPgW_gzAH&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/asia/trump-zero-sum...

shdzsm 2y ago
[dead]

doinkmun 2y ago

From a zero-sum perspective, wouldn't it be an effective tactic to convince your competitors to avoid zero-sum thought? It's also worth remembering that in democracy, the demographics of voting blocs necessarily creates a zero-sum distribution of power.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Depends. Do you actually live in a zero-sum world, or not? If you live in a zero-sum world, that's an interesting tactic. It might be effective. If you don't, though, then you opened your opponent up to a better way of doing things, while you're still stuck in a less optimal way. That's a losing move.
- doinkmun 2y ago
  Good point. Is there in fact a limited supply of energy and physical materials? If so, the universe is finite and thus zero-sum as bounded by the efficiency of use. Do humans asses things more through impartial objectivity or via relativistic comparison? If yes to finite resources and relative assesment, we live in a zero-sum world. If no to either, we do not (ie, if we have functionally unlimited resource abundance, or if we don't care about how we are situated relative to our neighbors).

cjs_ac 2y ago

Let's consider a positive-sum economy. Over time, the total amount of value in the economy grows. That additional value comes from innovation, but whose innovation? I grew up in Australia, in the state of New South Wales. In the end-of-secondary-school exams, the most popular subject in NSW is English, because it's compulsory. The second most popular subject is Business Studies. There's an awful lot of entrepreneurial spirit there. But the reality of the Australian economy is that its complexity is declining: the economic activity is ever more concentrated into fewer and fewer industries. Sure, there are some industries, like hospitality, where you can start your own business, but the bulk of the economy is dominated by a small number of large companies: a handful of mining companies, two supermarkets, and so on. Every now and then, there's a new government initiative, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme or the opening up of vocational training to private providers, and a few years later, there's a big scandal, because most of the companies providing these services turn out to be fraudulent. So much of Australia's economic activity is tied up in pre-existing businesses that it seems that the only way to do anything novel is to rip off the government. There was a time when Australians started innovative businesses: Victa lawn mowers, the Hills Hoist clothes line, and so on. Ford Australia and Holden (owned by General Motors) competed to build the best cars for the Australian market. This was a time of optimism and increasing living standards, when impoverished workers were enticed to emigrate to Australia by the Great Australian Dream: a detached house and a car of your very own! But now that airfares a cheap, talented Australians emigrate to the UK, the US, or the EU, and do their innovative work there. Thanks to tax breaks, the best possible investment you can make in Australia is to own someone else's home. The population is increasing faster than ever, but housebuilding is slowing down. The housing crisis has been building for twenty years now; anger turns to ennui. A belief that Australia has no future is slowly starting to coalesce. Australia has entered a zero sum death spiral. The solution is to create an economy where the old bootstraps analogy actually holds: where simple, honest hard work actually improves one's lot in life. An economy where anyone can innovate, not just university graduates with millions in venture capital funding: the economy that the Baby Boomers grew up in. If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first.

doinkmun 2y ago
"If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first." Funnily enough, zero-sum thinking would provide a solution for this. In order for your society to thrive, opportunity must be created. If nobody knows how to create sustainable (read, not based on subsidy) opportunity, it can always be manufactured at the cost of a target group. (Ethnic groups, 'the rich', other countries, etc. Pick your favorite.) In terms of a housing shortage, you can create housing for your 'team' by taking existing houses from those who aren't on your 'team'. In business or in academia, you can force hiring or admittance practices/rules/quotas that prioritize your 'team' over other 'teams'. There lies the crux. There is always gain to be had by those who simply choose to take it. Even the promise of a world order where such choices are unthinkable isn't protected. All it takes is one group who chooses to prioritize themselves, and then if the remaining group is not strong or numerous enough to fight them off, a new order is established and equity is abolished in favor of a new dominance hierarchy.

harimau777 2y ago

Isn't the problem that life is in fact zero sum? Most of the really important things (land, attractive spouses, desirable jobs, etc.) are extremely limited resources. I don't see how we move past zero sum when there is not enough of the things that people are fighting over to go around.

soulofmischief 2y ago
We inherited an earth stacked with tons of low entropy, and a sun providing us with 4 billion years of low entropy in reserve before we need to leave Earth. Carefully managed, this is not locally zero sum, and we can all benefit. Unfortunately, that doesn't satisfy some people, and they use their resources to disproportionately acquire even more resources until the peasants are left fighting for scrap.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  The amount of sunlight is not the zero-sum to worry about. For each of us individually the number of hours that we will spend breathing is limited. Life is therefore absolutely zero-sum, no matter what various sophists try to sell. What they try to sell is how one spends those limited hours, and more specifically - who do we serve in that time. Those few do have the illusion that life is not a zero-sum game. Until death presents them with the winning argument.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    That's not what zero sum means. It's not zero sum just because you eventually die. Every person has different goals and it's entirely possible for them to come out ahead with respect to their goals.
mech975 2y ago
Life isn't zero sum. If you look at the state of civilization now vs 2000 years ago, it's clear that we've played enough positive-sum activities to create much more wealth for the average person.

phendrenad2 2y ago

This feels very much like someone walking into a room with a complicated, but currently broken, machine, noticing that one cord isn't plugged in, and loudly announcing that you solved the problem before you even tried that cord. Oh duh, why didn't we think of that slaps forehead. If we all deny reality and pretend that life is an infinite-sum game then we can have most of the benefits of a true infinite-sum game. This simply doesn't stand up to game theory, because the spoils of defection are large and you can't stop people from doing it.

ashoeafoot 2y ago

We let the authoritarians send all their assets in a final meatwave. oh we learn to recognize the not surplus bribed tribal mode of humanity as the danger it is to stability of society. Less idealization and startrek, more actually taking into account what represents under stress. The degrowth we yearned for has arrived .

ashoeafoot 2y ago

The zero sum world is one of constant worldwars, and for little cause. Nazi Germanys wars and horrors of conquest were byproduct of a zero sum, colonial world order, were the strong regularly starved the weak out. Nobody in europe has starved since those days and to bring them back ,is to be unaware of what beast you call into the circle.