Jim Hlavac
| Poliitics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
| Economic Theory |
Economic Theory
Zero Sum -- where it is believed that there is a finite amount of wealth
in the world, or dukedom and thus, if the one with the least gets a little
more the one with the most believes that he now has a little less. And
no one is altruistic enough to allow that.
There is however no actual zero sum economy. It is impossible at
the core of the idea. Because it is impossible for any two people to
trade with each other, or cooperate with each other, without them
thinking that they got more than they put into it --whatever "it" is.
The argument that the rich keep the poor poor is part of the zero
sum theory. The reasonin is that if rich people are rich then they must
have more than their share of the pie, which means others get smaller
slices. It presupposes that there is only a finate amount of wealth to be
divided. If some have more than others must have less. But a pie as a
metaphor of the economy is in fact very limiting. A pie is so two
dimensional -- and can only be represented in a simple circle. And that
circle on a page in every economics textbook shows it even divided
into sections, or slices. And thus the perception is easily made that this
is the amount of wealth -- and thus if some have more than others
necessarily have less.
The use of the pie chart is in fact a direct consequence of marxist
thought, of a given amount of wealth. And it was very easy to show
that some had more and others less. The American government is of
course always trying to even out the distribution of the pie.
Statists talk about redistributing the wealth. This phrase, too,
implies that there is a set amount. We have to move some wealth from
the rich to the poor so we are all more alike.
The use of the metaphor playing field is also a two dimensional
way springing from Marxist thought. That are two teams -- the rich and
the poor -- the capitalist and the worker - -and we have to "even" the
playing field. But all playing fields have limits, namely the sidelines, out
of bounds.
When you view an economy in terms of a pie or a playing field it
automatically assumes that there is a finite amount of wealth that two
adversaries are fighting over. And hence rises the concept that there
are "winners and losers" in economics. This belief too is a direct
consequence of Marxist thought.
With the every economist using pie charts, and playing fields,
there automatically built in presumption that there are winners and
losers fighting over scarce resources. This is all predicated on Marx.
And all he did was define what then existed -- which was an England of
landed aristocracy. Indeed, with land there is a finite amount -- and
when all of it was owned by a small group of families on hereditary
terms, which usually meant at the point of a gun, at least some time in
the past, there was no way for regular people to own land. They were
shut out.
Indeed if there is a fight between people over the wealth of the
nation it is always between the individuals and the state. And the later
has always been driven by the divine right of kings to own the land and
control the wealth.
In feudal times it was between the royalty and the peasant. We
often forget that we are just barely more than a century removed from
royalty ruling every country on earth except America. And this too is
part of the difference between America and the world. Even the
countries that threw off the king of Spain, in South America, merely
installed their own local kings, even if they didn't use the word. But
Brazil had an emperor until the 1860's and Mexico toyed with an
emperor in the 1860's too. But a president for life is in fact no different
than a king -- it is merely a semantical difference.
It is the nature of royalty, based as it is on land, to believe in the
zero sum of economics. And it was only a renaming of the parts by Marx
that has led to this continuing belief.
Of course, in studying economics it is much easier to do if you are
dealing with a static reality. This was one reason for Keynes great
phrase -- "all else remaining the same." And in the royalist, statist,
Marxist thought that he followed it was easy to believe that all else
remained the same when he proposed all sorts of new fangled theories
on which to base the right of the state to interfere in the economy.
in the world, or dukedom and thus, if the one with the least gets a little
more the one with the most believes that he now has a little less. And
no one is altruistic enough to allow that.
There is however no actual zero sum economy. It is impossible at
the core of the idea. Because it is impossible for any two people to
trade with each other, or cooperate with each other, without them
thinking that they got more than they put into it --whatever "it" is.
The argument that the rich keep the poor poor is part of the zero
sum theory. The reasonin is that if rich people are rich then they must
have more than their share of the pie, which means others get smaller
slices. It presupposes that there is only a finate amount of wealth to be
divided. If some have more than others must have less. But a pie as a
metaphor of the economy is in fact very limiting. A pie is so two
dimensional -- and can only be represented in a simple circle. And that
circle on a page in every economics textbook shows it even divided
into sections, or slices. And thus the perception is easily made that this
is the amount of wealth -- and thus if some have more than others
necessarily have less.
The use of the pie chart is in fact a direct consequence of marxist
thought, of a given amount of wealth. And it was very easy to show
that some had more and others less. The American government is of
course always trying to even out the distribution of the pie.
Statists talk about redistributing the wealth. This phrase, too,
implies that there is a set amount. We have to move some wealth from
the rich to the poor so we are all more alike.
The use of the metaphor playing field is also a two dimensional
way springing from Marxist thought. That are two teams -- the rich and
the poor -- the capitalist and the worker - -and we have to "even" the
playing field. But all playing fields have limits, namely the sidelines, out
of bounds.
When you view an economy in terms of a pie or a playing field it
automatically assumes that there is a finite amount of wealth that two
adversaries are fighting over. And hence rises the concept that there
are "winners and losers" in economics. This belief too is a direct
consequence of Marxist thought.
With the every economist using pie charts, and playing fields,
there automatically built in presumption that there are winners and
losers fighting over scarce resources. This is all predicated on Marx.
And all he did was define what then existed -- which was an England of
landed aristocracy. Indeed, with land there is a finite amount -- and
when all of it was owned by a small group of families on hereditary
terms, which usually meant at the point of a gun, at least some time in
the past, there was no way for regular people to own land. They were
shut out.
Indeed if there is a fight between people over the wealth of the
nation it is always between the individuals and the state. And the later
has always been driven by the divine right of kings to own the land and
control the wealth.
In feudal times it was between the royalty and the peasant. We
often forget that we are just barely more than a century removed from
royalty ruling every country on earth except America. And this too is
part of the difference between America and the world. Even the
countries that threw off the king of Spain, in South America, merely
installed their own local kings, even if they didn't use the word. But
Brazil had an emperor until the 1860's and Mexico toyed with an
emperor in the 1860's too. But a president for life is in fact no different
than a king -- it is merely a semantical difference.
It is the nature of royalty, based as it is on land, to believe in the
zero sum of economics. And it was only a renaming of the parts by Marx
that has led to this continuing belief.
Of course, in studying economics it is much easier to do if you are
dealing with a static reality. This was one reason for Keynes great
phrase -- "all else remaining the same." And in the royalist, statist,
Marxist thought that he followed it was easy to believe that all else
remained the same when he proposed all sorts of new fangled theories
on which to base the right of the state to interfere in the economy.