ecomomics zero sum game

ecomomics zero sum game

Economics as a Zero Sum Game

1. Introduction

That is the main concern of economics science, to increase the content of people’s pockets. However, supporters of new technologies ensure that these will not cause unemployment, just substitution. That is because, for all machines used in modern plants, manpower is required for designing, installing, programming, operating, and repairing them. The final goal of these machines, and the men working them, is to increase production and make everyone wealthier. But if manpower is required for producing the capital itself – because now machines can be produced by themselves – the use of these will never generate unemployment. Some may say that attractive wages in the production of said capital may cause a rise in the creation of machines, and then in the quantity of goods and services produced in the economy. This will result in lowering the offered price of those goods, increasing, in fact, the content of workers’ pockets when new goods start to be produced. Economists say that lowering prices increases consumption, which in turn increases GDP.

Today, the production process is completely different. It is possible, and actually happens, to produce cheap goods from one of its inputs that is offered as wages at the least increased rate. In this way, more goods are produced, and it is possible to make everyone better suited.

One of the main characteristics of societies is the production, distribution, and consumption of the goods and services that satisfy their needs. For ancient societies, the means of production was mainly land, which used to be the most abundant factor, as it was the basis for subsistence. Thus, it is understandable that all production was meant for satisfying basic needs, made in small quantities, and in a one-to-one relation. Therefore, a new good dressed a poor and old lady had to dress at that time an elegantly dressed young man.

2. Understanding Zero Sum Game

Pulling the rope at turn 1 creates the belief that a relationship between the two opponents is created, since if one gains an advantage, the other automatically loses. At turn 2, there is no hidden zero-sum game here, and the stake (TU offers required) is shared. A zero-sum game is direct trade, with both a seller and a buyer in the first round attempting to acquire the transaction can offer $X (x <= ethereal maximum sku value), and the overall outcome is a win/lose game for some transaction. (Foe, either you win or lose). Meanwhile, in the opposite direction (S1 and S2), it will also conclude the direction of the zero-sum relationship where the wages of S1 (V (1)) will reduce the well-being of S2 (D (2)) given the price of travel.

Pulling the rope in “tug-of-war” is a zero-sum game. There is a direct link between the winners and the losers in zero-sum games. We can say that because economics involves the trade of goods and services which leads to direct competition between sellers or buyers. That competition can lead to a win for one party and a loss for another. Consequently, economics is a zero-sum game. The direction of zero-sum involvement in economics depends on whether money enters the system.

Team A and team B are playing tug of war. Each team takes one side of the rope and pulls the other team towards them. It is said in English there are three types of games: zero-sum games, win-win games, and lose-lose games. Pulling the rope in tug of war (tug means pull) can be seen as a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum game, the winnings are shared and for one to win, the other must lose. Consequently, there is a direct relationship between competitors and a win for one is a loss for another.

3. Implications of Zero Sum Game in Economics

In a zero-sum game world, recessions, constraints are necessary, social, political, and nationalist elites with special legal and financial privilege are also part of the total zero-sum game. Bankruptcy, sale, or closing of assets is a balancing mechanism, a tool for economic survival to co-evolve with technologies and a growing population. So how do we survive as a species on a finite planet? Infinite growth or zero-sum game do not offer long-term solutions. In an IT-driven Mars human colony, where Earth life-supporting systems are absent, food will become scarce and lead to energy starvation due to massive hailstorms. How should one reinvent an alternative evolutionary path? To encompass the fluid nature of society’s existential problems, to be able to reveal possibilities in the broader solution space? In complexity science, a ‘system’ is a collection of complex, adaptive agents who are expected to follow rules to capture the essence of their simple/enormous interactions that then model unexpected order!

The foundational school of economics is based on zero-sum game dynamics. Play that generation’s game and you will live and feel the world as a zero-sum game; it is always relative. In such dynamics, all flows, transactions, actions are wins and losses – net zero; total wealth of the system remains constant. A key cornerstone is energy, resources, and food flows in and out of the economic system. Wealth, for that generation, is only cash in hand, in the bank, or profits in business. Central to zero-sum game dynamics is technology; the state of the art for what it can do in a generation, say the IT revolution, creates societal winners and losers and private profits, from how it displaces economic activity. As it destroys one form of employment, it creates another; the sum remains zero hence the term zero-sum game!

4. Challenging the Zero Sum Game Perspective

Time and again, it follows from what we have shown that there is no artificial ceiling with respect to economic growth and that increasing production and more remarkably a larger world population are essential conditions if welfare is to advance. So, both the optimists and the skeptics were wrong. We have considered some examples of policies aimed at economy-wide productivity improvements and provided some evidence that points in the direction that such increases lead to reductions in employment rates and layoffs. With the basic features of our model, the productivity growth in the European economy in the 1990s might account for 1.2 per cent of the variation in the employment rate during this period. This drives the individual well-being. Equally important, most of the empirical studies on the employment effects of productivity growth rely on American data from after 1965. The observed reduction in employment in the 1970s and 1980s is therefore the growth accounting objectives have always included a deterrent effect of the industrialization on employment through the balances between population growth and resources so. Also, if this effect is left out of consideration, one may overstate the positive effects of the growing welfare. This will hinder the balanced development of societies may raise tensions between groups and hence there shall be potential for disruptions – belonging to those who fear that more production may wreak social decay.

Economics as a zero-sum game can be expressed as follows: every increase in well-being of individuals in one part of the world will be accompanied by an equal decrease in others. Since the world’s resources are finite, if a given amount is added to the well-being of an additional number of fortunate persons, a corresponding amount must be subtracted from the well-being of some other persons. The joint products capabilities of societies will contribute to improvement in the world average production and hence change for the better in the well-being of individuals, especially when poor societies are involved in the process. Contrary to what was pointed out before, an increase in individual well-being and improvement in production and diminishing employment are not at odds with one another. There is a juxtaposition between the Malthusian view that holds that more production means a lower level of well-being; those who hold and have held this view could have some reasons, theoretically and empirically, when it comes to the well-being of some particular countries. However, from this belief, there is no direct credibility for the sequence production – employment – individual well-being in a general world balance.

5. Conclusion

The term “publicly approved” is used instead of “essential” because many people carry out activities that are generally considered enjoyable, useful, constructive, or essential (for more examples of publicly approved, see the items listed on the positive aspects page). Economics refers to society as “the community and the country”. Although the word “essentially” is used, it is not a useful concept. What the general public most wants done depends on a great deal of factors, and greater clarity can probably not be achieved. This is accepted by economics, which states that the most important problem is the production of desired goods and services. It is important to note that the use of “publicly approved” is general and logically consistent with the formulation of economics as a zero-sum game.

The fundamental concept of economics is that the whole of society is like a large joint stock company, and the most important problem is how resources are allocated among its members. These are obviously severely questionable propositions. The labor needs and publicly approved things to be done are effectively infinite, fluctuating around very high levels. Resources, including labor, are deliberately kept unused or underused to provide a secure life for the few whose desires do not yet lead to publicly approved work. People do only a few hours of publicly approved work in order to have an income because it is said there are insufficient resources for everyone to have the things they need. Economics merely provides convincing arguments, but not reasons, to explain the situation.

The central and fundamental assertion of economics is that there are not enough resources to produce all the goods and services that could be produced. Even at full employment, there is unemployment of resources (workers, machinery, land and buildings, etc.). There are not enough paid jobs, and some employed people, including many carrying out research and going to meetings, are not doing things which most or all of the general public find useful. Thus, economics claims that the most important problem for the vast majority of people is the allocation of scarce resources. This is the only problem which is important enough to justify most people not doing things which most or all of the general public find useful.