SoftBonds
Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012 Status: offline
|
It is not a "zero-sum" game. In a zero-sum game (LOL, I'm actually studying them at college right now), anything one person gains is gained by taking from another. Certainly there are elements that are zero-sum, the labor hours of a particular skilled worker (a CEO or high class prostitute for instance) that could not be replaced by another. However, many things that would seem limited are in fact only partially limited. For example, Oil. If the price of oil goes up, more oil is discovered or becomes economical to extract, and the amount of oil increases (effectively, it isn't being created, only extracted, but...). The other issue is that in game theory you often look at 2 person zero sum games, but in the real world, there is always another person/party/etc you could team up to screw over. When Bin Ladin had trouble overthrowing the Saudi Government, he went after the US... A really interesting "game," in the US, especially right now, is "job creation." The supply of jobs is based on the amount of work that is needed, which is based on demand for goods and services, with some government interference creating inefficiencies (INTENTIONALLY) to create extra jobs. However, productivity has been increasing exponentially since the start of the industrial age. This means the goods and services available have also been increasing exponentially, even at a per-capita rate. We have had to consume ever more goods to keep people employed. Recently, a group of people realized that they could "prime the pump," of spending by encouraging people to spend now with money they would earn in the future, credit cards. In the short run, this led to a wonderful boom time as desire for goods and services increased without an increase in labor available (well, other than labor in China...oops). In the long term, it led to the people who spent on credit having less to spend, as large portions of their pay were diverted from current spending to making payments of principle and interest (mostly interest) on their past purchases. At the same time, the folks who were receiving these payments, wisely did not invest in new productive capacity (of goods the indebted would not have been able to afford anyway), but instead looked for other investments. Commodities, divivatives, etc. All perfectly logical, but it means we now have a sump pulling money out of the system of "buying stuff we produce," which means that you can expect unemployment to be high for a while, until the debts are paid down and the rich get out of the gambling business. Or, to put is shortly, We're screwed... edit:clarity (yes, it was even more confusing and long winded before)
< Message edited by SoftBonds -- 2/28/2012 8:48:56 AM >
_____________________________
Elite Thread Hijacker! Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply) The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.
|