Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
is this what is proposed by zero-sum? i've always assumed it was a judgment on the win-win disposition of transactions. in a perfect market or one which thrives for it, when you charge $5 for your widget and i buy it, i have traded up, and you have traded up. because we each got what we wanted for what we were willing to offer, this is sum-positive.
examining your slice of the economy, we've got to account for debt, credit and earning potential, assets and liabilities. with this look, the relationships between the 1% and the 99% is clearer. the 1% has all the loot, but are they obligated to make payroll on friday? granted that, are the 99% creditors? this can go on in granular detail, but it would entail a number of sum-positive relationships between the stark demographics in your slice. the interdependence is what leaves the ultimate character of the economy as win-win. even if there are parties who don't win as much, through their participation, they come out ahead in a given slice.
Donald Trump says the Chinese refer to our politicians as "stupid" and "foolish". I can see why.
is this what is proposed by zero-sum? i've always assumed it was a judgment on the win-win disposition of transactions. in a perfect market or one which thrives for it, when you charge $5 for your widget and i buy it, i have traded up, and you have traded up. because we each got what we wanted for what we were willing to offer, this is sum-positive.
examining your slice of the economy, we've got to account for debt, credit and earning potential, assets and liabilities. with this look, the relationships between the 1% and the 99% is clearer. the 1% has all the loot, but are they obligated to make payroll on friday? granted that, are the 99% creditors? this can go on in granular detail, but it would entail a number of sum-positive relationships between the stark demographics in your slice. the interdependence is what leaves the ultimate character of the economy as win-win. even if there are parties who don't win as much, through their participation, they come out ahead in a given slice.
Payroll may never happen, debt may never be repaid, Friday may never happen (esp for some individuals) but today, the 1% definitely has all the loot.
The poor have forever been encouraged to await their reward in the future, perhaps in heaven after they die, but the rich are rich today.
The argument against the "limited pie" or zero sum economy are really just variations of that age old lie.
China extensively suppresses labor rights, which lowers production costs within China.
Repression of labor rights by the Chinese government has lowered manufacturing wages of Chinese workers
China provides massive direct subsidization of export production in many key industries
China maintains strict, non-tariff barriers to imports.
Chinas trade surplus was responsible for 68.5% of the U.S. total non-oil trade deficit in 2008
You would think that Republicans and the one or two conservative Democrats, who think they are such good businessmen, would be able to do a better job of business than just move millions of American jobs to China in return for a few paltry campaign contributions.
Donald Trump says the Chinese refer to our politicians as "stupid" and "foolish". I can see why.
might i offer that the observation of activity in these slices you propose, if there is not accountability of potentials, is lacking in information needed to accurately assess an economy, or any matter which can fall on a timeline? such a snapshot of two cars neck and neck in the middle of a race cant deliver any real information. if one of the cars is accelerating and the other decelerating, the implications of the freeze-frame are moot, so long as potentials are not considered.
economics instead works with the idea of perfect markets. real markets do stray from these ideals, but for the most part, they adhere to their general principle, barring scenarios such as your 'there might be no friday' or deception on the part of the parties. in such markets, the pie is not limited between participants, and potentials are worthy to consider.
ultimately, you go to work because you would prefer to spend your time doing what i say, than spending it on your own agenda, given that i pay a satisfactory and predictable amount for the privilege and don't ask outrageous feats of you. your work facilitates my income as well, which is in turn the result of a similar contract between our organization and our customer whereby they have forfeited what they think is fair for a service or product they prefer to the cash itself. in this scenario, everyone has participated in a way which they have profited, or they have otherwise acted irrationally. barring this imperfection in the market, this mutual gain by all parties affords the overall economy a positive, win-win-win disposition. the pie is not equally distributed, total economy produces more wealth than on which operates without the freedoms entailed in this model. just because the employee makes the least form the transaction (which isn't always the case) doesn't mean they were lied to or treated unfairly.
there are winners and loosers even though transactions and relationships in an economy are likely to be win-win. there isn't an economy in the world which could bring everyone into participation. developed economies facilitate this above and beyond what commerce can. the examples you propose are more matters of accessibility to a positive sum economy. it takes money to make money is real. your positive sum depends on the additives.might i offer that the observation of activity in these slices you propose, if there is not accountability of potentials, is lacking in information needed to accurately assess an economy, or any matter which can fall on a timeline? such a snapshot of two cars neck and neck in the middle of a race cant deliver any real information. if one of the cars is accelerating and the other decelerating, the implications of the freeze-frame are moot, so long as potentials are not considered.
economics instead works with the idea of perfect markets. real markets do stray from these ideals, but for the most part, they adhere to their general principle, barring scenarios such as your 'there might be no friday' or deception on the part of the parties. in such markets, the pie is not limited between participants, and potentials are worthy to consider.
ultimately, you go to work because you would prefer to spend your time doing what i say, than spending it on your own agenda, given that i pay a satisfactory and predictable amount for the privilege and don't ask outrageous feats of you. your work facilitates my income as well, which is in turn the result of a similar contract between our organization and our customer whereby they have forfeited what they think is fair for a service or product they prefer to the cash itself. in this scenario, everyone has participated in a way which they have profited, or they have otherwise acted irrationally. barring this imperfection in the market, this mutual gain by all parties affords the overall economy a positive, win-win-win disposition. the pie is not equally distributed, total economy produces more wealth than on which operates without the freedoms entailed in this model. just because the employee makes the least form the transaction (which isn't always the case) doesn't mean they were lied to or treated unfairly.
you are talking about different things.
There is a really really great argument to be made that society as a whole rewards everybody who participates within it.
But the suggestion that current wealth disparity or other disparity is offset by future potential is as often as not a kind of deception. For example maxims like "work hard, stay in school and _____and you will succeed" are often flatly false.
From a risk assessment perspective or a career planning perspective you would want to consider potential. But if you are a second generation Guatemalan competing in the workforce against third generation Ivy league trust fund babies the prospects of future success do not offset current disparity.
There is a long history of indoctrination for the world's poor that involves placating their current grief with future promises, the most famous of which is the age old promise of rewards in heaven for good works on earth today.
Anything to keep them harvesting the sugar cane or carrying peat on their backs to the King's castle or voting dem even tho Obama sucks!
disproportion or disparity and zero-sum are different observations.
you will have to raise an argument that the wealth of those represented by the larger portion is only gained at the expense of those holding the smaller portion
No economic exchange is a means of making natural selection less violent. Accumulating wealth is always about who gets the groupies and sugarbabies.
disproportion or disparity and zero-sum are different observations.
actually the most common use of the "unlimited pie" argument is to explain away current disparity.
you will have to raise an argument that the wealth of those represented by the larger portion is only gained at the expense of those holding the smaller portion
Isn't that self evident? That is the very crux of the zero sum argument. And it seems so obvious to me that an explanation is unwarranted. Just look around. Then visit any moment that ever occurred and look around again, and again. The result is always the same.
All because the basic design of capitalism is intended to produce wealth for some at the direct expense of the many.
That is what capitalism is, a scheme to separate fools from their money. Or a scheme to reward those who have at the direct expense of those who don't have.
C A P I T A L I S M.
Is this not clear?
no. you'll have to explain how the wealth of those who have the bigger portion is only gained at the expense of the folks with the smaller share.
i've always used the pie to explain how progressive tax and spend is not zero-sum. you'll have to explain this 'direct expense of the many' concept, it escapes me.
Proponents generally agree that modern economic conditions tend to hinder or prevent society from earning enough income to purchase its output production. Centralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.[1][2]
As either a component of larger socioeconomic ideologies or as a stand-alone theory, economic democracy promotes universal access to common resources that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism or centralized by state socialism. Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic rights,[3] economic democracy suggests alternative models and reform agendas for solving problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples include democratic cooperatives, fair trade, social credit, and the regionalization of food production and currency.
Marx distinguished industrial capitalists from merchant capitalists. Merchants buy goods in one market and sell them in another. Since the laws of supply and demand operate within given markets, a difference often exists between the price of a commodity in one market and another. Merchants, then, practise arbitrage, and hope to capture the difference between these two markets. According to Marx, capitalists, on the other hand, take advantage of the difference between the labor market and the market for whatever commodity the capitalist can produce. Marx observed that in practically every successful industry input unit-costs are lower than output unit-prices. Marx called the difference "surplus value" and argued that this surplus value had its source in surplus labour, the difference between what it costs to keep workers alive and what they can produce.
no. you'll have to explain how the wealth of those who have the bigger portion is only gained at the expense of the folks with the smaller share.
i've always used the pie to explain how progressive tax and spend is not zero-sum. you'll have to explain this 'direct expense of the many' concept, it escapes me.
oooookay, I happened to have this page open at the moment:
Proponents generally agree that modern economic conditions tend to hinder or prevent society from earning enough income to purchase its output production. Centralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.[1][2]
As either a component of larger socioeconomic ideologies or as a stand-alone theory, economic democracy promotes universal access to common resources that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism or centralized by state socialism. Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic rights,[3] economic democracy suggests alternative models and reform agendas for solving problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples include democratic cooperatives, fair trade, social credit, and the regionalization of food production and currency.
But I could as easily have just posted this:
Marx distinguished industrial capitalists from merchant capitalists. Merchants buy goods in one market and sell them in another. Since the laws of supply and demand operate within given markets, a difference often exists between the price of a commodity in one market and another. Merchants, then, practise arbitrage, and hope to capture the difference between these two markets. According to Marx, capitalists, on the other hand, take advantage of the difference between the labor market and the market for whatever commodity the capitalist can produce. Marx observed that in practically every successful industry input unit-costs are lower than output unit-prices. Marx called the difference "surplus value" and argued that this surplus value had its source in surplus labour, the difference between what it costs to keep workers alive and what they can produce.
You are quibbling over semantics. Government messing around with interest rates either rewards or punishes savers or borrowers (but not both simultaneously) - and government spending is ALWAYS targeted at certain sectors at the expense of others.The test is hardly a polemic on the virtues of Keynesian economics. It is much more oriented towards classic supply and demand relationship (which Keynes advocated to manipulate via government choosing winners and losers).
(which keynes advocated to manipulate via government bolstering demand)
just to be accurate.
this is your simpleton's pie-based economy, boe. the real world does not operate on this zero-sum basis. because your belief system is grounded in this fallacy, your whole understanding of the government in an economy is toast.
fail. the econocrats are not describing the US, and neither is marx. marx's argument assumes that production is exclusive to subsistence stocks, doesn't it. a worker producing tennis balls, a luxury or transporting them to market, a service, is exempt from the necessary relationship of surplus value (aka profit) and this same worker's purchasing power to sustain himself.
the econocrats have based their arguments on this fallacious observation of marx' it seems. they've never been to the US.
see: here's a fresh example of how i throw the pie around:
You are quibbling over semantics. Government messing around with interest rates either rewards or punishes savers or borrowers (but not both simultaneously) - and government spending is ALWAYS targeted at certain sectors at the expense of others.
this is your simpleton's pie-based economy, boe. the real world does not operate on this zero-sum basis. because your belief system is grounded in this fallacy, your whole understanding of the government in an economy is toast.
see: here's a fresh example of how i throw the pie around:
this is your simpleton's pie-based economy, boe. the real world does not operate on this zero-sum basis. because your belief system is grounded in this fallacy, your whole understanding of the government in an economy is toast.
You are resistant to observing the economy as a series of 100% static moments. Nobody can change that except you.
