The economy is not a zero sum game

[ksen]

I've heard conservatives say the above and then turn right around when the issue of inequality comes up and says there will always be winners and losers.

Well, doesn't the fact there will be winners and losers strongly indicate that the economy is indeed a zero sum game?

 

[Nexus]

No, games that are scored have winners and losers. The winner just has a higher score. With that said wealth is mostly zero sum. Obviously it can grow overtime with population, improvements in labor efficiency etc but there are limits.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, games that are scored have winners and losers. The winner just has a higher score. With that said wealth is mostly zero sum. Obviously it can grow overtime with population, improvements in labor efficiency etc but there are limits.

The issue is how do you define wealth and it's not an easy issue. And you can have a game were some people win a lot, most win a little, and some win a little but not have any losers.

 

[ksen]

And you can have a game were some people win a lot, most win a little, and some win a little but not have any losers.

How is that not "zero-sum"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because a zero sum means when someone else loses, but you don't have to have losers.

 

[ksen]

Because a zero sum means when someone else loses, but you don't have to have losers.

wat?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Because a zero sum means when someone else loses, but you don't have to have losers.

Looks like you're missing a few words in this sentence.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because a zero sum means when someone else loses, but you don't have to have losers.

Looks like you're missing a few words in this sentence.

Yep, sorry

Because a zero sum means when someone wins someone else loses, but that isn't the case in the economy. You don't always have losers in the economic game.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's funny, when the discussion is about transfer of wealth to the upper class, the economy is not a zero sum game. The rich people aren't taking slices of pizza from everybody else, they're just making a whole 'nother pizza for themselves.

But when the discussion is about welfare and health insurance being subsidized by the government, THE POOR ARE STEALING DIRECTLY FROM THE RICH OH MY GOD HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT STATE SANCTIONED THEFT

 

[NobleSavage]

Historically, the economy grows about 5% a year minus inflation. So no, it's not a zero sum game, but it's not open ended either. However, those who benefit from the growth are those who can invest in the economy either monetarily or with time and effort ( inventing a patent or creating intellectual property like programing or writing a song). If you are living pay check to pay check and have no free time, you are locked out.

 

[Underseer]

I've heard conservatives say the above and then turn right around when the issue of inequality comes up and says there will always be winners and losers.

Well, doesn't the fact there will be winners and losers strongly indicate that the economy is indeed a zero sum game?

That depends on whether or not we are trying to justify giving more money to the aristocracy, and more importantly, how we are trying to justify transferring more wealth to the aristocracy. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's funny, when the discussion is about transfer of wealth to the upper class, the economy is not a zero sum game. The rich people aren't taking slices of pizza from everybody else, they're just making a whole 'nother pizza for themselves.

But when the discussion is about welfare and health insurance being subsidized by the government, THE POOR ARE STEALING DIRECTLY FROM THE RICH OH MY GOD HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT STATE SANCTIONED THEFT

The argument would be, is the rich getting their money voluntarily? if i get paid $25 for mowing a loan, i don't consider the $25 the government's money that they loaned me so they can take any or all of it if they want.

 

[ksen]

Looks like you're missing a few words in this sentence.

Yep, sorry

Because a zero sum means when someone wins someone else loses, but that isn't the case in the economy. You don't always have losers in the economic game.

When an economy will always have winners and loser, as those who defend inequality tell us we will, then it is a zero sum game. When someone wins that means there is less for everyone else.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

by the looks of my bank account it is a zero sum game. Ain't that right job creator Mitt Romney?

 

[repoman]

The fossil fuel explosion is why it seemed a while that the economy was not a zero sum game. But time averaged it is. For our descendants it will be a negative sum game.

 

[ksen]

Historically, the economy grows about 5% a year minus inflation. So no, it's not a zero sum game, but it's not open ended either. However, those who benefit from the growth are those who can invest in the economy either monetarily or with time and effort ( inventing a patent or creating intellectual property like programing or writing a song). If you are living pay check to pay check and have no free time, you are locked out.

If it's not infinite then it has to be zero sum whether it's growing or not.

The US economy generates about $16 trillion in income a year. The net worth of households and non-profits is about $55 trillion. That's a really big, finite number. If 600 families control the vast majority of that wealth then that leaves less for everyone else. And if those 600 families are able to increase their share, which they have been, then less and less will be left over.

That sounds like zero sum to me.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny, when the discussion is about transfer of wealth to the upper class, the economy is not a zero sum game. The rich people aren't taking slices of pizza from everybody else, they're just making a whole 'nother pizza for themselves.

But when the discussion is about welfare and health insurance being subsidized by the government, THE POOR ARE STEALING DIRECTLY FROM THE RICH OH MY GOD HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT STATE SANCTIONED THEFT

The argument would be, is the rich getting their money voluntarily? if i get paid $25 for mowing a loan, i don't consider the $25 the government's money that they loaned me so they can take any or all of it if they want.

No, that's not anywhere near the argument.

 

[Underseer]

If it's not infinite then it has to be zero sum whether it's growing or not.

The US economy generates about $16 trillion in income a year. The net worth of households and non-profits is about $55 trillion. That's a really big, finite number. If 600 families control the vast majority of that wealth then that leaves less for everyone else. And if those 600 families are able to increase their share, which they have been, then less and less will be left over.

That sounds like zero sum to me.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny, when the discussion is about transfer of wealth to the upper class, the economy is not a zero sum game. The rich people aren't taking slices of pizza from everybody else, they're just making a whole 'nother pizza for themselves.

But when the discussion is about welfare and health insurance being subsidized by the government, THE POOR ARE STEALING DIRECTLY FROM THE RICH OH MY GOD HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT STATE SANCTIONED THEFT

The argument would be, is the rich getting their money voluntarily? if i get paid $25 for mowing a loan, i don't consider the $25 the government's money that they loaned me so they can take any or all of it if they want.

No, that's not anywhere near the argument.

Yes, but those 600 families deserve to be wealthier at the expense of others because they work so hard. The hundreds of millions who are not part of those 600 families deserve to have less because they're a bunch of lazy bums. Therefore, making them wealthier does not come at the expense of everyone else. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[coloradoatheist]

If it's not infinite then it has to be zero sum whether it's growing or not.

The US economy generates about $16 trillion in income a year. The net worth of households and non-profits is about $55 trillion. That's a really big, finite number. If 600 families control the vast majority of that wealth then that leaves less for everyone else. And if those 600 families are able to increase their share, which they have been, then less and less will be left over.

That sounds like zero sum to me.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny, when the discussion is about transfer of wealth to the upper class, the economy is not a zero sum game. The rich people aren't taking slices of pizza from everybody else, they're just making a whole 'nother pizza for themselves.

But when the discussion is about welfare and health insurance being subsidized by the government, THE POOR ARE STEALING DIRECTLY FROM THE RICH OH MY GOD HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT STATE SANCTIONED THEFT

The argument would be, is the rich getting their money voluntarily? if i get paid $25 for mowing a loan, i don't consider the $25 the government's money that they loaned me so they can take any or all of it if they want.

No, that's not anywhere near the argument.

Yes, but those 600 families deserve to be wealthier at the expense of others because they work so hard. The hundreds of millions who are not part of those 600 families deserve to have less because they're a bunch of lazy bums. Therefore, making them wealthier does not come at the expense of everyone else. [/conservolibertarian]

Wouldn't it be expense of others if the other person had their money taken from them instead of voluntarily given to them by that other person?

 

[ksen]

I didn't realize the poors voluntarily worked for extremely low wages. I also didn't realize the middle class voluntarily took a pay cut.

 

[dismal]

I've heard conservatives say the above and then turn right around when the issue of inequality comes up and says there will always be winners and losers.

Well, doesn't the fact there will be winners and losers strongly indicate that the economy is indeed a zero sum game?

We seem to have more stuff and better lives than cavemen did so there must be a logic fail or semantic fail in there somewhere.