Either/or

[Mount Brocken]

Does one have to subscribe to either a zero-sum view on economics or a non-zero sum view? Is it possible that zero-sum is a legitimate portrayal of economics as long as one doesn't view the pie from which slices are being divided by as being static? For instance, since a particular nation's economic nation is constantly producing and consuming, this suggests that pies are being eaten and created all the time. But, even if a new pie is bigger, or smaller, the question is, who is slicing the pie pieces? If portions are the same proportionate to the whole pie, then it would be a zero-sum game, given the fact that although it is a new pie, the slices given out are proportionately the same. Any thoughts?

 

[bripat9643]

Does one have to subscribe to either a zero-sum view on economics or a non-zero sum view? Is it possible that zero-sum is a legitimate portrayal of economics as long as one doesn't view the pie from which slices are being divided by as being static? For instance, since a particular nation's economic nation is constantly producing and consuming, this suggests that pies are being eaten and created all the time. But, even if a new pie is bigger, or smaller, the question is, who is slicing the pie pieces? If portions are the same proportionate to the whole pie, then it would be a zero-sum game, given the fact that although it is a new pie, the slices given out are proportionately the same. Any thoughts?

The term "zero sum" refers to a pie that doesn't grow over time. So what you are trying to say why can't "zero sum" = "non zero sum?"

That's classic liberlogic.

 

[Mount Brocken]

But the dynamic of the model is far more involved than that. If we assume the pie does grow (which clearly it does), it doesn't follow that the percentages of the pie grow, since the determination of the percentages are in the hands of corporations and federal interest rates. So, just because the pie grows or diminishes does not suggest that the percentages of those slices remain the same.

 

[bripat9643]

But the dynamic of the model is far more involved than that. If we assume the pie does grow (which clearly it does), it doesn't follow that the percentages of the pie grow, since the determination of the percentages are in the hands of corporations and federal interest rates. So, just because the pie grows or diminishes does not suggest that the percentages of those slices remain the same.

If the pie grows, then it's not "zero sum."

That's the bottom line.

If the percentages remain the same, then everyone gets a bigger slice over time.

 

[Mount Brocken]

If the pie grows, then it's not "zero sum."

That's the bottom line.

If the percentages remain the same, then everyone gets a bigger slice over time.

That is just it, IF the percentages stay the same. If they change in disproportionately to where the slices are the same size, save those at the top, then it resembles more of a zero-sum model even though the pie grows. If the pie diminishes in size, it is likely everyone will be poor. But if it grows in size, there is no reason to think the portions will. This is the classical fallacy of trickle-down. I am not stating zero-sum is correct in the sense of a static pie. But it does suggest that slices, or portions, can remain the same even if the pie grows.

 

[bripat9643]

If the pie grows, then it's not "zero sum."

That's the bottom line.

If the percentages remain the same, then everyone gets a bigger slice over time.

That is just it, IF the percentages stay the same. If they change in disproportionately to where the slices are the same size, save those at the top, then it resembles more of a zero-sum model even though the pie grows. If the pie diminishes in size, it is likely everyone will be poor. But if it grows in size, there is no reason to think the portions will. This is the classical fallacy of trickle-down. I am not stating zero-sum is correct in the sense of a static pie. But it does suggest that slices, or portions, can remain the same even if the pie grows.

However, that doesn't reflect reality. Anyone who thinks the poor in this day and age don't live any better than the poor lived before the turn of the century is utterly ignorant.

 

[Dad2three]

Does one have to subscribe to either a zero-sum view on economics or a non-zero sum view? Is it possible that zero-sum is a legitimate portrayal of economics as long as one doesn't view the pie from which slices are being divided by as being static? For instance, since a particular nation's economic nation is constantly producing and consuming, this suggests that pies are being eaten and created all the time. But, even if a new pie is bigger, or smaller, the question is, who is slicing the pie pieces? If portions are the same proportionate to the whole pie, then it would be a zero-sum game, given the fact that although it is a new pie, the slices given out are proportionately the same. Any thoughts?

True, a good explanation, one Bripat is to ignorant to understand


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot
There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[Mount Brocken]

If the pie grows, then it's not "zero sum."

That's the bottom line.

If the percentages remain the same, then everyone gets a bigger slice over time.

That is just it, IF the percentages stay the same. If they change in disproportionately to where the slices are the same size, save those at the top, then it resembles more of a zero-sum model even though the pie grows. If the pie diminishes in size, it is likely everyone will be poor. But if it grows in size, there is no reason to think the portions will. This is the classical fallacy of trickle-down. I am not stating zero-sum is correct in the sense of a static pie. But it does suggest that slices, or portions, can remain the same even if the pie grows.

However, that doesn't reflect reality. Anyone who thinks the poor in this day and age don't live any better than the poor lived before the turn of the century is utterly ignorant.

But what is the cause of this? Free markets or technology?

 

[Mount Brocken]

Does one have to subscribe to either a zero-sum view on economics or a non-zero sum view? Is it possible that zero-sum is a legitimate portrayal of economics as long as one doesn't view the pie from which slices are being divided by as being static? For instance, since a particular nation's economic nation is constantly producing and consuming, this suggests that pies are being eaten and created all the time. But, even if a new pie is bigger, or smaller, the question is, who is slicing the pie pieces? If portions are the same proportionate to the whole pie, then it would be a zero-sum game, given the fact that although it is a new pie, the slices given out are proportionately the same. Any thoughts?

True, a good explanation, one Bripat is to ignorant to understand


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot
There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

WELL SAID!

 

[saveliberty]

If the pie grows, then it's not "zero sum."

That's the bottom line.

If the percentages remain the same, then everyone gets a bigger slice over time.

That is just it, IF the percentages stay the same. If they change in disproportionately to where the slices are the same size, save those at the top, then it resembles more of a zero-sum model even though the pie grows. If the pie diminishes in size, it is likely everyone will be poor. But if it grows in size, there is no reason to think the portions will. This is the classical fallacy of trickle-down. I am not stating zero-sum is correct in the sense of a static pie. But it does suggest that slices, or portions, can remain the same even if the pie grows.

However, that doesn't reflect reality. Anyone who thinks the poor in this day and age don't live any better than the poor lived before the turn of the century is utterly ignorant.

But what is the cause of this? Free markets or technology?

There are no true free markets, the most free ones do create most of the technology. Government attempts to balance these percentages, but they must make constant changes to their policies, because they are false solutions. Things like minimum wage don't make the poor richer, they simply create more poor as it eats into the middle class. The bottom line is you want to control wealth of others so you can socially experiment. You feel justified by a sense of intellectual and moral superiority.

 

[saveliberty]

Does one have to subscribe to either a zero-sum view on economics or a non-zero sum view? Is it possible that zero-sum is a legitimate portrayal of economics as long as one doesn't view the pie from which slices are being divided by as being static? For instance, since a particular nation's economic nation is constantly producing and consuming, this suggests that pies are being eaten and created all the time. But, even if a new pie is bigger, or smaller, the question is, who is slicing the pie pieces? If portions are the same proportionate to the whole pie, then it would be a zero-sum game, given the fact that although it is a new pie, the slices given out are proportionately the same. Any thoughts?

True, a good explanation, one Bripat is to ignorant to understand


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot
There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

WELL SAID!

Corporations exist to distribute gains to individuals after taxes, reinvestment, cost of goods sold, etc. Most corporations do not use stock as a means to create wealth or distribute gains. The reason for that is most companies are small ones or privately held. Companies are a convenient scapegoat for liberals to rail against, until you realize what most companies are.

 

[percysunshine]

If the pie grows, then it's not "zero sum."

That's the bottom line.

If the percentages remain the same, then everyone gets a bigger slice over time.

That is just it, IF the percentages stay the same. If they change in disproportionately to where the slices are the same size, save those at the top, then it resembles more of a zero-sum model even though the pie grows. If the pie diminishes in size, it is likely everyone will be poor. But if it grows in size, there is no reason to think the portions will. This is the classical fallacy of trickle-down. I am not stating zero-sum is correct in the sense of a static pie. But it does suggest that slices, or portions, can remain the same even if the pie grows.

However, that doesn't reflect reality. Anyone who thinks the poor in this day and age don't live any better than the poor lived before the turn of the century is utterly ignorant.

But what is the cause of this? Free markets or technology?

Both.

.

 

[saveliberty]

Rich people are evil. Corporations are evil. I just see a lot of hate coming from you MB. You label groups and attack.

 

[Mount Brocken]

If the pie grows, then it's not "zero sum."

That's the bottom line.

If the percentages remain the same, then everyone gets a bigger slice over time.

That is just it, IF the percentages stay the same. If they change in disproportionately to where the slices are the same size, save those at the top, then it resembles more of a zero-sum model even though the pie grows. If the pie diminishes in size, it is likely everyone will be poor. But if it grows in size, there is no reason to think the portions will. This is the classical fallacy of trickle-down. I am not stating zero-sum is correct in the sense of a static pie. But it does suggest that slices, or portions, can remain the same even if the pie grows.

However, that doesn't reflect reality. Anyone who thinks the poor in this day and age don't live any better than the poor lived before the turn of the century is utterly ignorant.

But what is the cause of this? Free markets or technology?

There are no true free markets, the most free ones do create most of the technology. Government attempts to balance these percentages, but they must make constant changes to their policies, because they are false solutions. Things like minimum wage don't make the poor richer, they simply create more poor as it eats into the middle class. The bottom line is you want to control wealth of others so you can socially experiment. You feel justified by a sense of intellectual and moral superiority.

That is true, there aren't any TRUE free markets. But there are freer markets than others. The question is, does a market need to be entirely free, or as free as a libertarian would want it to be, in order for it to produce the sorts of results expected, or can one measure by approximation?

Also, I don't want to control wealth. I want the workers to control their own wealth based on their own participation in a company as owning it themselves.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Rich people are evil. Corporations are evil. I just see a lot of hate coming from you MB. You label groups and attack.

I don't think rich people are evil, anymore than I think drug addicts are evil. They are victims of a system that exploits their own vices just as much as anyone. I think obscene wealth is a bad thing for anyone.

 

[saveliberty]

Work overtime or get a second job.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Work overtime or get a second job.

Why should someone have to work overtime just to get by? If there is evidence that profits are low, I would say yes. But for the most part this is not the case. Productivity is high, profits are high, therefore I see no reason for this.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Rich people are evil. Corporations are evil. I just see a lot of hate coming from you MB. You label groups and attack.

OK, let us just say that I find certain views destructive and I think people fall prey to those ideas.

 

[saveliberty]

Rich people are evil. Corporations are evil. I just see a lot of hate coming from you MB. You label groups and attack.

I don't think rich people are evil, anymore than I think drug addicts are evil. They are victims of a system that exploits their own vices just as much as anyone. I think obscene wealth is a bad thing for anyone.

Really? How much of that wealth has Bill Gates and other very wealthy people donated back to charity?

You can see the moral superiority you feel in this post.

 

[saveliberty]

Work overtime or get a second job.

Why should someone have to work overtime just to get by? If there is evidence that profits are low, I would say yes. But for the most part this is not the case. Productivity is high, profits are high, therefore I see no reason for this.

Because wealth by definition means you have more than another. Therefore you do something more to achieve it. It is not an entitlement as is implied in your post.