The economy is not a zero sum game

[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]

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?

Preach it, brother! If anything impedes or even slows down the transfer of wealth from everyone else to those deserving members of those 600 families, it's the same thing as stealing from those 600 families! It is good to know that there is at least one other freedom-loving patriot who knows his place as a worthless peasant! Freedom isn't free! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[ksen]

we live better than cavemen, awesome.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Underseer]

By the way, I nailed it. The argument is that the aristocracy deserves to be rich, everyone else deserves to be poor, therefore the economy is not a zero sum game. As stupid as the logic of that argument is, that is exactly the argument that is being made in this thread as far as I can tell. Taxes are stealing!

 

[coloradoatheist]

we live better than cavemen, awesome.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

You don't have to go that far back. How about comparing it to 200 years ago or even 100 years ago?

 

[coloradoatheist]

By the way, I nailed it. The argument is that the aristocracy deserves to be rich, everyone else deserves to be poor, therefore the economy is not a zero sum game. As stupid as the logic of that argument is, that is exactly the argument that is being made in this thread as far as I can tell. Taxes are stealing!

Our FFers went to war over taxes, so there is precedent. The reason that the poor aren't still rebelling like they did over 100 years ago is because they know your argument isn't true and that they could be worse off then they are.

 

[dismal]

we live better than cavemen, awesome.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

...he types into his smartphone.

 

[ksen]

we live better than cavemen, awesome.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

...he types into his smartphone.

You mean "he types into his Galaxy S5 smartphone of the bourgeoisie".

 

[ksen]

we live better than cavemen, awesome.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

You don't have to go that far back. How about comparing it to 200 years ago or even 100 years ago?

we live better than frontiersmen and farmers, awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

And those distractions really don't argue against the economy really being a zero sum game.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You don't have to go that far back. How about comparing it to 200 years ago or even 100 years ago?

we live better than frontiersmen and farmers, awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

And those distractions really don't argue against the economy really being a zero sum game.

you are the one saying that the S5 Galaxy smart phone is only for the hooty towty (sp?) and the poor have no access to smart phones.

 

[ksen]

Ok.

Now please go ahead and explain again how the economy is not a zero sum game. If it wasn't a zero sum game then why is there widening inequality? Why are there winners and losers?

 

[dismal]

You don't have to go that far back. How about comparing it to 200 years ago or even 100 years ago?

we live better than frontiersmen and farmers, awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

And those distractions really don't argue against the economy really being a zero sum game.

If the economy is a zero sum game how has our standard of living improved?

 

[ksen]

Why should I accept that "standard of living" is the measure to use to decide if the economy is zero sum or not?

And who says our standard of living is increasing?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Ok.

Now please go ahead and explain again how the economy is not a zero sum game. If it wasn't a zero sum game then why is their widening inequality? Why are there winners and losers?

You are the one describing it as winners and losers. On the game of wheel of fortune you can have three winners, just one that is the bigger winner.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why should I accept that "standard of living" is the measure to use to decide if the economy is zero sum or not?

And who says our standard of living is increasing?

What are you defining as standard of living? Are you just defining at as wealth on paper?

 

[ksen]

Ask dismal, he's the one that brought "standard of living" into this.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Ask dismal, he's the one that brought "standard of living" into this.

We'll see what dismal comes back with. And that comparison is dependent on a single number that we believe that the government can take the billion or so transactions in a year and come down with the exact number for inflation.

 

[Underseer]

Ask dismal, he's the one that brought "standard of living" into this.

We'll see what dismal comes back with. And that comparison is dependent on a single number that we believe that the government can take the billion or so transactions in a year and come down with the exact number for inflation.

So.... transferring massive amounts of wealth to 600 families doesn't make everyone else poorer because the government does a bad job of measuring inflation? I'll have to keep that one in mind for my next parody post.

 

[Jayjay]

You don't have to go that far back. How about comparing it to 200 years ago or even 100 years ago?

we live better than frontiersmen and farmers, awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

And those distractions really don't argue against the economy really being a zero sum game.

If you agree that we're better off than cavemen (or 198th / 19th century farmers) on average, then economy since then has not been a zero sum game. Why do you think that it is a zero-sum game now? When did economy become a zero sum game? 50 years ago? 10 years ago? Last tuesday?

 

[NobleSavage]

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.

Well, the WORLD'S billionaires have a aggregate net worth of $6.4 trillion. The World's net worth is $200 Trillion. If you look at the list of billionaires there is quite a bit of churn. It's not like Feudal Europe. More and more people are added the the list every year (well beyond what you would get from inflation). There were 42 new women billionaires in JUST 2014. Roughly two-thirds of the billionaires built their own fortunes, 13% inherited them and 21% have been adding on to fortunes they received. So new money has the biggest piece of the pie.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakr...4-forbes-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/

 

[ksen]

why restrict to billionaires?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk