|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 10:31:59PM -0400, Matthew Rosewarne wrote:
> On Friday 26 October 2007, zuzu wrote:
> > I don't mean to blithely dismiss this much writing without considering
> > it more, but after my first reading you seem to implicitly assume that
> > economics is a zero-sum game. perhaps this is because you're
> > challenging the assumption that all trade is both-benefit?
>
> The last paragraph in particular expresses the opinion that there is no need
> for this to be a zero-sum game. But for every bargain, you generally want to
> make sure that you don't get ripped-off. I'm not challenging the notion that
> trade is mutually-beneficial, far from it. I am, however, arguing that waste
> is decidedly _not_ beneficial, and that trading our industrial cow for the
> magic beans of cheap tube socks and an temporary stock price boost is
> wasteful and not at all a good deal. I'd appreciate it if you would indeed
> take a closer look, since I tried to give a helpful answer.
Markets are not zero sum and they have never been. Wealth is not zero sum;
it can be created and destroyed. The trade that you describe is not a
waste because it creates wealth in both directions of trade. Again, please
read the Econ101 textbook.
--
Toby DiPasquale
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|