Comments on: Is global economics a zero-sum game?

By: RJM

RJM — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:32:51 +0000

Another factor is credit and debt. One way the economy expands is through debt. All of the apparent growth in in the economy, including capital assets is offset by equal and opposite levels of debt (less whatever has been written off). When added together these equal zero.

By: RJM

RJM — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:25:13 +0000

IMHO, the economy is a zero-sum game. Ultimately, total profits must equal total losses. Yet the economy does grow. However this is only possible because the losses are eventually written off and are forgotten about. In the example of Thak and Grunt, the blackberries always existed and therefore were always (potentially) part of the economy. Their discovery did not expand the economy.

By: US 3rd highest rich-poor gap in advanced world - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 9 - City-Data Forum

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:27 +0000

[…] disagree with your zero-sum concept. Here is one Harvard MBA economist on the subject of zero sum. Ask the Harvard MBA ? Is global economics a zero-sum game? Humans make wealth, simply by demanding it. Wealth in an of itself is a human invention. All of […]

By: US 3rd highest rich-poor gap in advanced world - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 9 - City-Data Forum

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:39:09 +0000

By: VA

VA — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:47:02 +0000

“…So now we’ve seen that economics is not a zero-sum game, and that trade brings benefits to both parties.”

What exactly are these benefits? We should be able to quantify them in some manner. Physics dictates that nature is a zero sum game, so in the case of Thak and Grunt, some benefit is being transferred from natural resources (blueberries and beetles) to themselves.
Notice that if the blueberries were not eaten then they would fall to the soil and enrich the soil and give rise to newer blueberry shrubs. By eating the blueberries, Thak has appropriated that benefit for his own survival. Similarly with beetles and Grunt.

So the economic growth (benefit) has occurred by transferring some natural resources for human survival.

Ultimately, survival is the only real benefit. Even a luxury is a means to prolong ones life even though it’s very inefficient at doing so…

By: schuyler

schuyler — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:53:30 +0000

Popular and traditional economic theories do not take into account the natural laws that govern the physical world, e.g. Thermodynamics. When an economy functions on a global scale, then fundamental natural limits become critical for the sustainability of an economic system. Ecosystems have finite limits, in relation to fossil fuels or minerals that we mine from the earth, for example. Water, nutrient rich soil, and other sustainable resources have rate limits; that is, they can only recover at a finite rate. There is a finite rate at which solar energy falls upon the earth. In the context of such examples a global economy indeed DOES represent a zero sum game. For a given standard of living there is a finite number of people the earth and it’s ecosystems can support. When resource limits are reached, there will be a corresponding change in some other factor of the balanced physical system, e.g. lower standard of living, fewer people, etc. Forget what MBAs have to say about global economics; in the scope of very large scale systems, their fundamental assertions are unscientific and consistently wrong.

By: JE

JE — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:19:31 +0000

Nicholas, just because blackberries have a higher value does not mean that the value of Grunt’s beetles “decreases” at all. The blackberries are simply worth more because they taste better.

It’s also not true that a currency’s relative value decreases when GDP increases. You need to distinguish currency from wealth. The amount of currency stays the same, but the amount of overall wealth in the economy rises with the GDP, and with it rises the standard of living in the country (i.e. we’re eating blackberries instead of beetles).

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:28:10 +0000

Ok. Tell us. Who are the winners in this financial meltdown? Who were the winners in the crash of 1929 and the depression that followed?

Thanks.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:25:17 +0000

Ok. Tell us, who are the winners in this financial meltdown? Who were the winners in the crash of 1929? Cue Bono?

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:25:18 +0000

Doesn’t this idea of the “growing economy” in the positive-sum interpretation of economics ignore the inherent inflation that comes with the growth. The trade value of Grunt’s beetles has now decreased due to the ready availability of blackberries. When per capita GDP increases, yes, everyone has more currency, but that currency’s relative value is decreased, leaving only those who gained greater than the average proportion in a better state than before.