|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Zero-sum is in this case that a gain in resources by one entity means an equal subtraction of resources from another entity. When considered in isolation, people typically probably will correctly point out that the economy is not zero-sum. Yet, many of those same people hold political views that derive from the idea that the economy is zero-sum. We had an example of this just the other day in that gif Jack posted of a suit-and-tie guy taking the oreos.
At any point in time, wealth is constant because that point is one point and includes no change. But once we use multiple points in time, wealth is either increasing or decreasing (or remaining the same) based on changes in resource allocation. Resources include everything from oil to expending energy to wake up in the morning. Allocation of those resources depends on how their use is organized. Wealth derives from when that organization produces stuff people desire. An increase in wealth derives from when that organization becomes more efficient since that produces more of what people desire with the same resources. That also happens if there is a positive supply shock (like discovery of oil fields), but generally changes in supply are only impacted by us through efficiency, so we don't have need to address the supply shock element. Continuing on, an individual's allocation of resources can change dramatically over a short period of time. If you simply wake up one day and decide to work harder, your resource allocation improves markedly and the expectations of your future wealth improves markedly (if your change is essentially permanent).
So, let's take Phil as an example. Phil can start out as a lazy sack of shit who does nothing and learns nothing new, to transforming his life and becoming quite wealthy by merely allocating resources more efficiently while not detracting from somebody else. Phil can plant plants with positive yield that nobody else was going to plant, he can read books that nobody else was reading, he can act kindly to people, he can help other people solve problems and solve his own problems, he can build things that other people like enough that they'll wanna trade with him. He can do all this by using resources that people were not using, by using resources that other people gain by him using (like if he trades for some resources), and by more efficiently using resources than ways they were not being used before (like using a shovel to plant instead of hands or a rock).
There is a lot Phil can do to increase his resource allocation, which ultimately leads to increasing his monetary wealth and investment capital (a shovel or a house or a room full of computers can be thought of as investment capital). The political policies we want are the kind that allow Phil to do this. What we don't want is political policies that deter Phil from doing this. Most people can do what Phil does yet many are deterred. Some are deterred by a lot (like those living under dictatorships), and some are deterred by less but still a significant amount (like people who have to spend $20k on the licensing process to cut hair).
So basically your argument is that if the lazy ass gets up and does something he will have more wealth and not have to ask the government for it.
I wouldn't deny this. My point is not that you should reward people for doing nothing, rather that the rewards should fall within certain boundaries and not be limitless (or nearly so) for certain people at the expense of others.
To take an extreme example: A guy opens a MAGA hat factory. As a confirmed capitalist, he believes that he deserves the lion's share of whatever wealth comes from that factory. He opens it in a depressed area, pays people minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, fuck 'em he can hire some other poor slob the next day for the same pay. And because MAGA hats sell so well, he barely has to work a six-hour day to make a yuge profit.
As a result he makes $3m a year working a six-hour day while all his workers make $30k a year on eight hours a day. And in twenty years the workers all get cancer from the dye used in the caps because Trump cut the regulations and the employer can also not be sued for any of it.
This seems proper to you?
|
Reply With Quote
