Economics.

[EFLImpudence]

'Gaining wealth is at the cost to one or many others'
It does not hold.

Yes it does.

It states if one person gains wealth, another is poorer or cant gain wealth.
Makes no sense at all.

I don't think anyone has said another is poorer, but they certainly won't gain wealth.
They are always needed to do the work and be customers.

and at the other wealth generation that benefits the poor.

Only one of those things is the purpose of the operation.

 

[Notch7]

Money does not grow on trees!
It is a zero sum system.

That is because you have bastardised the philosophy.

Guess where the majority of wealthy people sit on that spectrum.

And thats where your argument falls down.

The zero sum system fallacy

Technology, innovation, and capital investment all lead to capital growth. Just ask The Harvard MBA, he’ll you:
“World economics are definitely NOT a zero-sum game. Were that truly the case, you’d still be sitting around your cave with your buddies Thak and Grunt, snacking on beetles and grubs. Clearly, the world economy is larger today than it was 25 years ago.”

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

And that really is true in the European commission

Back foot, so bring the EU into it.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

And thats where your argument falls down.

The zero sum system fallacy

Technology, innovation, and capital investment all lead to capital growth. Just ask The Harvard MBA, he’ll you:
“World economics are definitely NOT a zero-sum game. Were that truly the case, you’d still be sitting around your cave with your buddies Thak and Grunt, snacking on beetles and grubs. Clearly, the world economy is larger today than it was 25 years ago.”

FFS:

The answer is that while economics is not a zero-sum game, and trade always benefits the participants, change can still produce winners and losers.
The reason we think of the rise of the ........ winners are largely invisible (and unaware) and the losers are highly visible (and loud).

 

[EFLImpudence]

I didn't say it was zero sum, but it is not done to benefit the poor.

I don't think anyone has said another is poorer, but they certainly won't gain wealth.
They are always needed to do the work and be customers.

 

[Notch7]

Money does not grow on trees!
It is a zero sum system.

That is because you have bastardised the philosophy.

Guess where the majority of wealthy people sit on that spectrum.

Wannabe clearly says it is 'it is a zero sum system'.

That leads to your argument that wealth gain is at the cost to others.

Do let me see where your argument holds that a zero sum system is true.

It doesnt matter where the explanation comes from, it was explained clearly.

Wannabe, stop avoiding the point by critising a link Ive included. You need to show how a zero sum system is true. You need to because thats the only your claim that wealth is at the cost to others can hold true.

Im interested to hear you prove a zero sum system holdd true in the world economy.

 

[noseall]

Do let me see where your argument holds that a zero sum system is true.

You need to show how a zero sum system is true.

Im interested to hear you prove a zero sum system holdd true in the world economy.

I think he gets the message. You do enjoy repeating yourself.

Can you show that it is not true?

Can you show that it is not true?

Can you show that it is not true?

 

[Notch7]

I think he gets the message. You do enjoy repeating yourself.

Can you show that it is not true?

Can you show that it is not true?

Can you show that it is not true?

I couldnt agree more.

If somebody make a claim, but wont answer the question, the only option is to push for an answer.

The claim is that wealth creation is at the cost to the poor.

That statement is based on a zero based system and is not true.

 

[noseall]

I couldnt agree more.

If somebody make a claim, but wont answer the question, the only option is to push for an answer

And yet you attempt to mock others for doing the same. Ho hum.

 

[noseall]

That statement is based on a zero based system and is not true.

Forgive me for not taking your word on it, can you show how this is not true?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Wannabe clearly says it is 'it is a zero sum system'.

That leads to your argument that wealth gain is at the cost to others.

Do let me see where your argument holds that a zero sum system is true.

It doesnt matter where the explanation comes from, it was explained clearly.

Wannabe, stop avoiding the point by critising a link Ive included. You need to show how a zero sum system is true. You need to because thats the only your claim that wealth is at the cost to others can hold true.

Im interested to hear you prove a zero sum system holdd true in the world economy.

In a global scenario, I would argue against Chris Yeh assertion, the winners (the developed world are the highly visible winners, and the under-developed, third world are the invisible (and without a voice) the losers.

But Chris Yeh's example was also based on Thak and Grunt's overly simplistic, mutually beneficial trades. Not all trades are mutually beneficial. Some may appear initially to be mutually beneficial, but over time it becomes apparent that there are winners and losers.
The world's resources are limited, so the only way that winners can continue to win is by creating 'products' that non-one really needs, but they become a desirable item. The losers are no better off, in fact they are less wealthy, and the winners are more wealthy.

In addition Chris Yeh's assertion is based on absolute values: that people, in general, are better off: " Both Thak and Grunt are now better off."
But that is in absolute terms,it is not in relative terms. If there were a third party intermediary, who could manipulate the trades (and perhaps the people), then both Thak and Grunt would be relatively worse off, and the intermediary would benefit, for no real, required resource collected and traded.

BTW, you do not need to push for an answer, just be patient. We do not all spend all of our time on social media.

 

[Notch7]

I didn't say it was zero sum, but it is not done to benefit the poor.

My apologies for the confusion, Im not suggesting you are saying it was zero sum.

 

[EFLImpudence]

My apologies for the confusion, Im not suggesting you are saying it was zero sum.

Likewise.

Probably my fault as I don't see Wannaby's posts.
A practice I recommend to everyone.

 

[Notch7]

Likewise.

Probably my fault as I don't see Wannaby's posts.
A practice I recommend to everyone.

Ah ok, it hadnt occurred to me somebody elses correspondence stream would be different

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Not pushing for an answer, but have you resigned your view that global economics is not a zero-sum game?