Are emotions the basis of zero-sum economic thinking?

[SteveA]

I was just thinking of something interesting regarding the view some people have toward wealth and the economy.

Some people assume wealth can't be created, it is something that's only transferred from one person to another. This doesn't explain how wealth is initially created but that's a sidenote.

We can look at different areas in the world and see some people have more wealth than others. It seems intuitive that if two people build homes, they are both more wealthy than if neither of them build a home.

So where does the source if this thinking stem from?

I think it may come largely from emotions. People are happy or sad but typically have a balance that varies over time but changes depending on current cirsumstances.

If a person is charitable and they are able to help personally help someone else, they feel happy about this but of course there are other people that will need help that they either can't easily assist or there are other cases of people that need even more help than they are able to provide and eventually the happiness subsides in that nothing is ever perfect. There's no way a person can remain perpetually happy without harmful physical consequences.

Envy is also something that operates similarly but in many ways the opposite of charity. It's similar though in that emotions change over time and the way people view some circumstance doesn't remain the same forever but tends to have a central emotional point it varies around.

So though you could have two people with or without houses, relative to each other, neither charitable or envious views would see a difference, yet the two people are still wealthier if they make houses than not.

Emotions may be a zero sum game, but physical wealth isn't. You can't in the long run create or destroy emotions or desires, similar to energy being transformed into matter or visa versa (an example someone actually gave as a description of wealth) but you can create and destroy wealth with undeniable lasting helpful or harmful effects.

Or another way to look at is that societies can improve or decline in wealth but if you're basing your view of wealth as something that needs to be compared to the Jones, then wealth is not longer something absolute but relative.

(I'm not saying this entirely explains such views but it may be a large part of them)

[tman_ndsu08]

If you define your system small enough, then wealth can be created or destroyed.

But a normal definition for a system would be one where wealth more or less stays the same.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

If you ask me were slowly slipping into an autocracy. It costs tons of money to run for an office, advertise, and travel everywhere to state your claim on nation or state wide issues. With that in mind, its completely and probably possible to have two rich idiots running for the same position.

[Athena]

Quote by: SteveA I was just thinking of something interesting regarding the view some people have toward wealth and the economy. Some people assume wealth can't be created, it is something that's only transferred from one person to another. This doesn't explain how wealth is initially created but that's a sidenote. We can look at different areas in the world and see some people have more wealth than others. It seems intuitive that if two people build homes, they are both more wealthy than if neither of them build a home. So where does the source if this thinking stem from? I think it may come largely from emotions. People are happy or sad but typically have a balance that varies over time but changes depending on current cirsumstances. If a person is charitable and they are able to help personally help someone else, they feel happy about this but of course there are other people that will need help that they either can't easily assist or there are other cases of people that need even more help than they are able to provide and eventually the happiness subsides in that nothing is ever perfect. There's no way a person can remain perpetually happy without harmful physical consequences. Envy is also something that operates similarly but in many ways the opposite of charity. It's similar though in that emotions change over time and the way people view some circumstance doesn't remain the same forever but tends to have a central emotional point it varies around. So though you could have two people with or without houses, relative to each other, neither charitable or envious views would see a difference, yet the two people are still wealthier if they make houses than not. Emotions may be a zero sum game, but physical wealth isn't. You can't in the long run create or destroy emotions or desires, similar to energy being transformed into matter or visa versa (an example someone actually gave as a description of wealth) but you can create and destroy wealth with undeniable lasting helpful or harmful effects. Or another way to look at is that societies can improve or decline in wealth but if you're basing your view of wealth as something that needs to be compared to the Jones, then wealth is not longer something absolute but relative. (I'm not saying this entirely explains such views but it may be a large part of them)

This is nuts, people don't build houses with feelings, they need resources. When gold is discovered everyone comes to get rich. Property values go up. Businesses come and do well. A whole community grows up around the natural resource. When that natural resource is gone evefything goes into reverse. Property value goes down. Businesses leave town. Finally nothing is left but a ghost town and in time that is gone too. To prevent this requires long term thinking and cooperation. So what is your emotional motivation, personal profit or the well being of all?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Athena This is nuts, people don't build houses with feelings, they need resources. When gold is discovered everyone comes to get rich. Property values go up. Businesses come and do well. A whole community grows up around the natural resource.

Thank you :)

When that natural resource is gone evefything goes into reverse. Property value goes down. Businesses leave town. Finally nothing is left but a ghost town and in time that is gone too. To prevent this requires long term thinking and cooperation.

It also requires an incentive.

So what is your emotional motivation, personal profit or the well being of all?

Don't people benefit from being profitable? Why do you see profit and well being as being contradictory? I posted this thread with regard to that specific view.
Let's assume there are two independent communities on virtually identical areas of land and number of people etc. The people in one community (we'll assume it's unanimous to keep it simple) decide to distribute profits evenly, while people in the other community decide they want to distribute profits relative to how much each persons actions help others (again we'll assume this is also a unanimous decision).

Here's a question I pose for you:

Would either group owe a debt to the other group, as long as their actions were independent and didn't harm people in the other group? And by "debt" I mean, is either group justified in forcibly invading or stealing from the other group?

If you believe one group could have the right to invade the other group for some reason, please let me know what right that is and how you justify it or see it as something that isn't simply destructive but somehow beneficial.

[SteveA]

Truthfully, in the above question, I don't see a need for the two groups to even have different ideologies.

Instead just assume they are independent with similar resources and people and see if there's any situation you feel would justify one group invading the other, or imposing some sort of penalties for the independent actions of the other group.

If you feel there's no obvious way in which to justify such actions by either group, then I don't think we really have many disagreements. If we can agree "live and let live" should be the rule of thumb between these two groups and that the only time some form of arbitration is needed is when there's interaction between the two, then we're most of the way there in finding a solution to the large majority of political issues around today. (How to arbitrate disputes between these groups would be the largest problem left, but it's a lot easier than trying to arbitrate disputes between everyone).

[Boetie]

To say that the end of social institutions is happiness, is to say that they have no common end at all. For happiness is individual, and to make happiness the object of society is to resolve society itself into the ambitions of numberless individuals, each directed towards the attainment of some personal purpose.

Such societies may be call Acquisitive Societies, because their whole tendency and interest and preoccupation is to promote the acqusition of wealth.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Athena This is nuts, people don't build houses with feelings, they need resources. When gold is discovered everyone comes to get rich. Property values go up. Businesses come and do well. A whole community grows up around the natural resource.

Right. And then, somewhere else in your system, a whole community goes down.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Boetie To say that the end of social institutions is happiness, is to say that they have no common end at all.

Social institutions aren't happy or sad, in themselves. It's how they affect individuals that determines whether they are beneficial or detrimental.

Obviously many people have common goals and benefit from interacting, and that's how social institutions can benefit people, but there isn't a single form of this that will work for everyone (except a form that allows multiple social institutions to exist).

For happiness is individual, and to make happiness the object of society is to resolve society itself into the ambitions of numberless individuals, each directed towards the attainment of some personal purpose.

:)

Looks like you already "get it". Thanks

Such societies may be call Acquisitive Societies, because their whole tendency and interest and preoccupation is to promote the acqusition of wealth.

I don't think wealth describes it well. People have different goals and want to work toward different things. Some people desire more personal freedom, possibly in the form of more "free time" and manners in which to enjoy this, some desire to live according to religious principles for social or afterlife rewards, and a few likely even desire simply to be left alone and though physical sustainence or prosperity is a relatively common desire for most people (it must be to some extent, even if it's merely to assure survival), even on such a common foundation not everyone will agree how to assure this.

If a group of people desire to have others assist them, they need to offer something of value in this association. We can't force people to attend a church, nor should we think we have a right to forcibly teach other peoples children our views, or expect people to fund an endeavor we desire against their interests. If these associations are beneficial then they should stand on their own merit and attract people to this cause, not enslave people into the system.

A simplified example might to consider a hermit who prefers to live alone and live on some bare sustainance, versus a society where people can specialize and insure others against unforeseen circumstances. I agree that the people working together will likely (though nothing is guaranteed) benefit greater from their associations. The key is to realize that just because the society happens to be numerous and wield greater power, shouldn't be the motivation to force the hermit to join in this. Instead, the salespitch should be of the benefits received by being part of it. In reality we have few hermits but we do have different social institutions of which some people might support and others they are effective a social hermit with regard to. Though physically there might not be as much isolation, ideologically there might be a difference larger than a mountain range, but that doesn't mean people need to pass laws and use police to start a war. Not everyone lives on the same side of the rocky mountains but we can still get along fine.

The real reason why it's so important to allow this independence in various social realms is because there are always people that desire the power to control others, even to their detriment, and it's very easy to drift away from a society that benefits people to a society that harms people if we ignore how society affects those individuals that compose it and remove their freedom to associate in ways they feel best serves their interests (and that doesn't specifically regard wealth either, though most everyone would include this to some extent). A lot of people see specific issues and feel some people are taking advantage of others while others see the same problem but in the opposite direction, whereas the real problem is the idea that people need to be forced to interact in areas they can't agree on. (Sometimes it might be unavoidable and we need to resolve the dispute one way or the other, but most the time it's not necessary and just because 51% of the people feel one way and 49% feel the other doesn't really mean anything other than that's what a public opinion poll says. In itself it doesn't justify using police etc. to start a war over something that there's little need to fight over - that's not a beneficial aspect to society, so we need to rethink what the purpose of "society" was).

[Compugasm]

Quote by: SteveA ...You can't in the long run create or destroy emotions or desires, similar to energy being transformed into matter...

What if your emotions fall into a black hole, what happens then?

[SteveA]

I had a discussion of this on another site also and here was one persons view:

Quote by: Ward Griffiths Government is a zero sum game at best, which doesn't happen often. War (the Health of the State) is a consistently negative sum game. Free trade and open markets are positive sum and always have been.

I think he might have hit on a good explaination. People who "work" through government see things in a non-productive light, because government relies on coercion or threats and force to operate, whereas those who don't and live in the peaceful and private realm of voluntary individual interactions realize life isn't a zero (or negative) sum game.

What if your emotions fall into a black hole, what happens then?

I guess they become rather detached from reality.

Yes, I agree that it's unrealistic to think wealth (or even emotions) are truly zero-sum. Some things just tend to have characteristics of it.