It expressly refers to relative, not absolute, wealth, which necessarily is zero-sum. (There's also quite a lot of evidence that relative, not absolute, wealth is the more important driver of exoerienced utility: humans are strongly programmed to be satisfied or not based on performance relative to expectations set by social environment, not absolute material condition. For this reason relative wealth is generally more important.)
The question isn't whether wealth is zero-sum or not. It is already super-obvious that wealth is not a zero-sum game.
The issue is that a certain small percentage of people are using positions of political power and influence to capture an unjustly large share of the wealth that is created by others.
Or do you honestly think that a Fortune 500 company CEO's yearly marginal product of labor is actually an 8 figure amount?
If wealth was a zero-sum game, thia would make sense. Fortunately, it's possible to create new wealth so that everyone is better off, even if some get richer than others relatively.
If wealth was a zero-sum game, thia would make sense. Fortunately, it's possible to create new wealth so that everyone is better off, even if some get richer than others relatively.
If wealth was a zero-sum game, thia would make sense. Fortunately, it's possible to create new wealth so that everyone is better off, even if some get richer than others relatively.
This is what Game Theory calls a Zero-sum Game. The economy isn't a zero sum game though, wealth creation does happen, and it doesn't necessarily come at the cost of someone else.
Wealth is absolutely a zero sum game depending on how you segment things. Increases in productivity and innovation are not zero sum, but things like land ownership on earth is absolutely zero sum.
reply