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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Sure, but to what degree does that wealth include the things that really matter? Everyone has more widgets but there's not enough room in the places people want to live, most people are working unsatisfying jobs, and many people can't find love.
We are doing much better in terms of food availability, lower chance of dying early from diseases, one can communicate with people over the entire world, travel easily to all sides of the globe, and many more things.
That people find ways to be less-than-happy regardless of material conditions. That does not mean the world is fundamentally zero sum. Actually I would argue that choosing to compete for the same things that everyone else wants, like living in the same places, is choosing a zero sum game where it is not needed.
It's possible that material conditions aren't nearly as important to happiness is commonly believed. Perhaps people are happier dying younger with a family and a degree of autonomy than they are living more years alone with little autonomy.
That is also the tale of humanity. 100 years ago an “unsatisfying job” was working on a farm with your abusive uncle. “Can’t find love” meant that all the men died in a war so…
In developed countries, there’s not much in the way of mass starvation anymore, and normal people have at least some chance of being able to spend money on things not directly required for survival, of being able to retire, etc. They’re generally literate and have some freedom to move between jobs. They’re unlikely to freeze to death if there’s a bad winter, and so on.
None of this was the case for the vast majority of people two centuries ago!
People not being able to find love seems largely beside the point; that’s not an economic issue, it’s a personal one. You could have a society as fabulously rich or grindingly poor as you like for that.
I don't think that one can separate the economic from the personal. Economics has a huge impact on the way that people interact socially, influences physical health which influences physical attractiveness, has a major impact on mental health, etc.
As far as I can tell, people in the past (at least post serfdom) also had greater opportunity to travel in search of greater opportunity. Today immigration controls make it difficult for people to leave failing countries like the US.
> As far as I can tell, people in the past (at least post serfdom) also had greater opportunity to travel in search of greater opportunity.
... Eh, different challenges, really. By the mid-19th century, adult death rates on transatlantic emigrant ships had fallen to a mere 1-3% (~10% for children), with some spikes into double-digits for adults due to disease. It was a one-way voyage; virtually no-one ever returned.
I disagree with the notion that life isn't zero sum. It only looks this way using a definition that conflates wealth with value, or from a viewpoint far from the limits of nature that would otherwise make this kind of nature obvious. Arguably what we've done, is merely transformed wealth into other forms we valued more.
Certainly value isn't zero sum, as we can always change our minds and value something else more, but I don't think this is a good argument for life (or wealth) not being zero sum. Anything we create, takes energy or resources from elsewhere (zero sum). Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down (zero sum). Simply put - everything has a cost. Sure we may not value costs equally (not zero sum), but remove our arbitrary valuations for things from the equation, and it is zero sum.
It seems like your conflating the meaning of zero-sum. It's specific to limited contexts where one party's gain must come at an equal loss to another party. "Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down" has nothing to do with the concept of zero-sum.
Our entire civilization is built on non-zero-sum cooperation. Technology is the byproduct of non-zero-sum cooperation.
If you're going to try and argue against game theory, your going to have to bring a much better argument.
^^ Redefines meaning of life to be dollars, accuses opponent of redefining zero-sum.
Silicon Valley is built on the attention economy. That term is a euphemism for making people spend their waking hours on addictive crap, taking away from the useful sum total. That's my definition.
Silicon valley is built on transistors, and by extension computers and software. The media industry is built on the attention economy.
Competing for people's attention is a zero-sum game, but building technology that helps people be more productive and do new things they couldn't before is not zero-sum.
Are you accusing me of redefining the meaning of life to be dollars? If so, I completely deny that accusation as it doesn't remotely align with my beliefs or what I said in my comment.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
"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.
In a globalized world, Richard's Law of comparative advantage tells us that the economic activity in each country will increasingly be concentrated into fewer industries. For example, it would no longer make sense to build cars in Australia if Mexico can do it better and cheaper.
This trend might reverse a bit. Populist tariffs and increasing transport costs are generally driving up the prices of imported goods in many countries.
Almost everything you have written here can also describe Canada. There is an Australian YouTuber named Chris Kohler who does really funny little shorts describing things happening in the Aussie economy and it’s jarring how often they apply directly to Canada also.
IOW you're just doing what the US has been doing for the last 30 years or so - shipping your "real" economy to China. Until that changes, Australia indeed doesn't have a future. The economy baby boomers grew up in isn't coming back, unless you're willing to tolerate a few years of a world war, and your continent is spared the consequences.
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 .
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.
