6 ms·

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 reso

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.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Yeah, this. Free trade (voluntary exchange) is inherently non-zero-sum, because each side gives up what they want less in order to get what they want more. That cannot be zero-sum.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    I think that only applies if people have the option of selecting the things that they actually want. From what I've observed it's more often the case that people don't give up the things that they value less for the things that they value more. Instead, they give up the only option they have to trade (e.g. labor at jobs that they despise) in exchange for the only option they can trade for to survive (e.g. products that keep them alive but provide little satisfaction).
  - Veserv 2y ago
    That is not completely true. The parties can incorrectly value the items being traded resulting in a non-positive sum trade for either or even both parties. However, absent intentionally deceptive information (i.e. the overwhelming majority of modern advertising and marketing), that is expected to be fairly uncommon in total-value terms.
    - bcrl 2y ago
      If your trading partner has the ability to manufacture something with a better cost structure than you can, say, because they have iron ore mine, a smelter and a gigantic hydro electric dam all in close proximity to each other, then you get a benefit from buying their cheap steel and performing the higher level manufacturing to convert that raw steel into goods that you can sell to other markets. Now, if you self inflict 25% tariffs on that steel, you'll have to find other more expensive steel to replace the cheap steel previously imported from the neighbour. Maybe there's nowhere in your country that has the same confluence of inputs required to make steel as cheaply as your trading partner did. Now you've got a permanent cost disadvantage. Or maybe you're just not willing to spend $20 billion to build a giant hydroelectric dam that gives you a cost advantage. How many decades of lost market share are you willing to give up before you think you might come ahead? Thinking that trade is always zero sum is bullshit. There are benefits outside of the balance sheet of goods moving across the border. How long do you think that other countries will wait until they decide to start taxing electronic services that the US sells so much of? Do you really think the short term gains of going after smelting steel are worth losing that market share? Blocking Google and Facebook is not all that hard to do. People who peddle ideology love to sell complex problems as having simple solutions. Well guess what: we've built a society that is so complex that nobody understands how everything interacts. One thing is certain: everybody's going to hurt.
FloorEgg 2y ago
There is no limit to "desirable jobs", and "desirable jobs" are not a resource. Your argument reads a bit like "there is no such thing as day, because sometimes it's dark out". Just because some aspects of life are zero sum doesn't mean all aspects of life are...
addicted 2y ago
Let’s look at all these things. Land - Land transfers are almost non existent since WW2 at national levels because instead of spending immense resource fighting over land, countries have realized it’s much more useful to make the land they own more productive. One very clear datapoint to demonstrate this is the massive shift of people from rural to urban locations. We are not even close to maxing that out, and with populations plateauing in most countries we will likely never reach that situation. Attractive spouses - Not really. What counts as attractive changes. But also, no matter what you choose as your marker for “attractive”, there are almost ceetainly gonna be more “attractive” people in a world where everyone has a basic standard of living, so even this can be grown drastically in a non zero-sum world. Desirable jobs - Zero sum thinking hurts the broader economy reducing the overall number of jobs. The claimed problem with the U.S. bu the zero sum proponents of a shortage of desirable jobs is actually the opposite. The reality is that the US has built a society where all that’s left are desirable jobs and Americans are simply unwilling to do undesirable jobs. Americans could have easily competed with the Chinese, if they were willing to earn below subsistence levels of income while working 72+ hours of hard labor every week. Instead the U.S. trades those jobs to the Chinese and took advantage of the surplus value these created for Americans bh doing jobs like finance, software, law and teaching. The problem with the U.S. is pretty evident in the numbers. The U.S. is richer than ever. However, the U.S. decides to use the massive wealth it was generating and redistribute it upwards to a tiny percentage of people at the top of society. This is domestic policy that has screwed Americans, not the rest of the world. And the reason this domestic policy exists is because newer American oligarchs forgot the non zero-sum thinking lessons of the older American oligarchs, famously, Henry Ford, who understood correctly that for him to be richer, his employees needed to be richer.

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.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Yeah, this. Free trade (voluntary exchange) is inherently non-zero-sum, because each side gives up what they want less in order to get what they want more. That cannot be zero-sum.
- harimau777 2y ago
  I think that only applies if people have the option of selecting the things that they actually want. From what I've observed it's more often the case that people don't give up the things that they value less for the things that they value more. Instead, they give up the only option they have to trade (e.g. labor at jobs that they despise) in exchange for the only option they can trade for to survive (e.g. products that keep them alive but provide little satisfaction).
- Veserv 2y ago
  That is not completely true. The parties can incorrectly value the items being traded resulting in a non-positive sum trade for either or even both parties. However, absent intentionally deceptive information (i.e. the overwhelming majority of modern advertising and marketing), that is expected to be fairly uncommon in total-value terms.
  - bcrl 2y ago
    If your trading partner has the ability to manufacture something with a better cost structure than you can, say, because they have iron ore mine, a smelter and a gigantic hydro electric dam all in close proximity to each other, then you get a benefit from buying their cheap steel and performing the higher level manufacturing to convert that raw steel into goods that you can sell to other markets. Now, if you self inflict 25% tariffs on that steel, you'll have to find other more expensive steel to replace the cheap steel previously imported from the neighbour. Maybe there's nowhere in your country that has the same confluence of inputs required to make steel as cheaply as your trading partner did. Now you've got a permanent cost disadvantage. Or maybe you're just not willing to spend $20 billion to build a giant hydroelectric dam that gives you a cost advantage. How many decades of lost market share are you willing to give up before you think you might come ahead? Thinking that trade is always zero sum is bullshit. There are benefits outside of the balance sheet of goods moving across the border. How long do you think that other countries will wait until they decide to start taxing electronic services that the US sells so much of? Do you really think the short term gains of going after smelting steel are worth losing that market share? Blocking Google and Facebook is not all that hard to do. People who peddle ideology love to sell complex problems as having simple solutions. Well guess what: we've built a society that is so complex that nobody understands how everything interacts. One thing is certain: everybody's going to hurt.

FloorEgg 2y ago

There is no limit to "desirable jobs", and "desirable jobs" are not a resource. Your argument reads a bit like "there is no such thing as day, because sometimes it's dark out". Just because some aspects of life are zero sum doesn't mean all aspects of life are...

addicted 2y ago

Let’s look at all these things. Land - Land transfers are almost non existent since WW2 at national levels because instead of spending immense resource fighting over land, countries have realized it’s much more useful to make the land they own more productive. One very clear datapoint to demonstrate this is the massive shift of people from rural to urban locations. We are not even close to maxing that out, and with populations plateauing in most countries we will likely never reach that situation. Attractive spouses - Not really. What counts as attractive changes. But also, no matter what you choose as your marker for “attractive”, there are almost ceetainly gonna be more “attractive” people in a world where everyone has a basic standard of living, so even this can be grown drastically in a non zero-sum world. Desirable jobs - Zero sum thinking hurts the broader economy reducing the overall number of jobs. The claimed problem with the U.S. bu the zero sum proponents of a shortage of desirable jobs is actually the opposite. The reality is that the US has built a society where all that’s left are desirable jobs and Americans are simply unwilling to do undesirable jobs. Americans could have easily competed with the Chinese, if they were willing to earn below subsistence levels of income while working 72+ hours of hard labor every week. Instead the U.S. trades those jobs to the Chinese and took advantage of the surplus value these created for Americans bh doing jobs like finance, software, law and teaching. The problem with the U.S. is pretty evident in the numbers. The U.S. is richer than ever. However, the U.S. decides to use the massive wealth it was generating and redistribute it upwards to a tiny percentage of people at the top of society. This is domestic policy that has screwed Americans, not the rest of the world. And the reason this domestic policy exists is because newer American oligarchs forgot the non zero-sum thinking lessons of the older American oligarchs, famously, Henry Ford, who understood correctly that for him to be richer, his employees needed to be richer.