not that I actually know that much about it, but

[lauralh]

people who try to talk about economics as if it were a zero-sum game are very, very, very annoying.

Comments

[llarian.livejournal.com]

Heh. I suppose it might have been when people were trading goats for bushels of wheat or something.

[bewing.livejournal.com]

Oh, laural, you a sooooo right!
And I DO know a lot about it!

llarian -- not really. Both sides of the exchange are happy with the results. Therefore they BOTH got MORE than what they started out with.

[jimbojones.livejournal.com]

No way; that's an example of when economics is FURTHEST from being a zero-sum game - if you have a successful goat herding operation, it's WAY easier to get a little wheat by trading goat milk for it than to operate a farm as well; and the same thing for the wheat farmer.

It's actually much easier to make the case for economics as a zero-sum game in more complex economies with liquid currency; but I still agree with Laural that it's ridiculous to think of it that way. Individual businesses can and too often are operated that way, but economics itself doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) zero-sum.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

oh yeah, don't even get me started on businesses doing that... it seems slightly Marxist to pay workers more for less time but it's proven that they are more productive if you do! god.

[llarian.livejournal.com]

Duh. Yeah, you're right. I'm an idiot. =)

[pamc.livejournal.com]

What do you mean? Of course someone loses when someone wins. Just look at the board games!




*kidding!*

[marys-second.livejournal.com]

amen.