Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around?
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.

I can see that more wealth can always be generated but not that the amount of extant wealth at point X in time can be altered. Or maybe that's besides the point.
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).