The best part of his analysis, IMHO. I don't even like being around zero-sum people.
The best part of his analysis, IMHO. I don't even like being around zero-sum people.
I think a lot of resistance to basic income, and a lot of fear of job loss due to outsourcing and automation, comes from the scarcity mindset. And if that's your world view, Trump makes sense.
I am a very romantic person and I don't see your point in the comment about dating.
I am dating the only person I would like to date, not the smartest, not the hottest, not,the funniest but the only one that now I feel like dating.
Right now, not other persons will get as much as she is getting from dating me (I can definitely being a better boyfriend, but I am the best I can be right now) nor I would get anything more from dating someone else but her...
I don't see it as a sum zero game...
Of course it is, you've taken her off the market thus that other guy that wants to date her must lose. People are a limited resource, there's only one of her, when resources are limited the game is always zero sum.
But our analysis should be a little more deep.
In my opinion she is the maximum; from any other gals I won't get as much positive "points", still in my opinion, I won't be able to provide more positive "points" to someone else but her.
This is not a zero-sum games, because, if it was, swapping girls wouldn't changes my "points"...
The first time of dating is like a bet, the partner is "good enough", you definitely look around and see more beautiful woman, smarter people or funnier mates, but for one reason or another you stick with her.
After a while you know her better, she know you better and something more happens, you start to care for each other, you want to care for the other, you do things against your self interest for the other.
Then you develop some sort of intimate caring and empathy, her becomes like a part of you, you see all of her flaws but they don't matter, you can understand her just by looking, you can feel when something is wrong, you don't image to share the same experience you had with her with some one else. (And this is the phase where I am now)
However, I am still physically attracted by other women, I cannot image nothing but sex with some one different from my partner; not romantic walks, not dinner together, not talking about me and my hopes or fear; but sex, definitely yes.
Sorry for the long off topic post :)
Lastly, I think that some for some people, sex is meaningless without the empathy, mutual love and concern backing it.
The first two, yes, but I don't see how the third follows. Let's say A + B are dating, likewise C + D. Later, they split up and pair up as A + C and B + D. It turns out A and C are much more compatible with each other as, are B and D. The total happiness of the system has increased.
Sure, the number of participants is relatively fixed, but it's not a question of "any warm body or alone", it's more a question of which specific people are most compatible with each other.
That's the zero sum trap in itself! What a painful place to be, I'm sorry.
It's a big ocean and we can all swim in it without having to push someone else down to accomplish it.
Sadly There are certainly a huge of people trying to convince you otherwise; consider the words of that famous London School of Economics student who (along with Richards) wrote:
He's tellin' me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to drive my imagination
[..]
And a man comes on and tells me
How white my shirts can be
But he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarrettes as me
All about "amazing" status via a combination of attainable and aspirational goods. I am sure most of those people are unhappy too.But of all the dimensions of amazing (and there are gazillions, not just coding or money collecting but parenting, spousing, woodworking, piano playing) there are also gazillions of local "amazing" thresholds. I'm not a great piano player but I really have a good time playing, and playing music with my friends.
Plus you may be a "superstar" without realizing it. A couple of weeks ago I was at a party and someone I consider quite accomplished, more than me, said to my kid (presumably not realizing I could hear): "now, we can't all be superstars like your Dad, but at least I have managed...."
This makes about as much sense as "the laissez-faire fascist worldview" or the "growth at any costs environmental worldview."
> "fuck you got mine" in the biggest christian nation on earth.
I fail to see what Christian's have anything to do with the matter. And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference.
> "that's why we don't do it, it isn't because of a zero-sum neoliberal worldview; it's because no one wants to pay for it."
Uh, the zero-sum neoliberal worldview is EXACTLY why we don't do it - because such a worldview says that if no one wants to pay for it then it's not worth it despite the fact that it could vastly improve welfare throughout the world and ensure more peace and stability than any "democracy spreading" wars ever could.
>"And we aren't a Christian nation, we're a secular nation with a lot of Christians, huge difference."
If you want to play semantics, fine you're right. There is no state religion (excepting the fact that christianity is part of our founding myth, it's all over the US currency, in our pledge of allegiance, in our symbology etc). But the point is there are hundreds of millions of Christians in this country, a religion whose foundational text (New Testament) is filled with endless cries to help the poor, to give away the material pleasures of life to help another, and yet we embrace the exact opposite. It's an example of how we've perverted our principles.
You are mistaken due to that bad metaphor. There is a vast difference between deploying some troops anywhere in the world, and setting up a permanent supply chain for food to everywhere in the world that needs food; tons of places don't even have decent roads nor the local government approval/agreement to allow the relief or not steal the relief. They are not remotely comparable. Getting food to the places it'd be needed is absolutely not a solved problem.
This is only true locally. I can derive a huge amount of happiness by being the best singer at a party, or the best at telling jokes in the pub, or the best at $SKILL in my team.
Even if you consider global geography (as with competing on the Internet as a startup, or looking for a job as a remote worker), you only have to be the best in that narrow area of what is available at that time (or the best at marketing it, or the best at selling it, or just the best at turning up and being presentable).
There are many, many opportunities to be "amazing" locally. You just need to define what, and where. The article uses the word "mindset", because happiness about what you think more than anything else.
Americans love corporations for some reason. If you make $100k/yr at a job and mostly surf the web, people consider that 'made'. If you are on welfare from the government, you're a no good bum. Why?
> I don't even like being around zero-sum people.
So, you don't like being around people with limited resources?I grew up with pretty limited resources (some weeks not much to eat at the end of the week) with two war-survivor parents with a pretty careful/cautious view of budget and resources so I certainly am comfortable around people who don't have a lot or don't have a lot of status.
I just don't enjoy people who think that winning is the point, and that in order to win another must lose.
I'm not a muslim but I found that word really useful...until about 15 years ago :-(. Need a better word acceptable to anglos in the west.
Almost every aspect of the world, cultural constructs and the physical realities that underpin them, for the foreseeable future, are going to remain, in effect, zero sum.
Right here on Hackernews the top story yesterday was the dead end Japan has reached by virtue of clinging to the fiction of permanent growth.
Worse, in domains in which there has been genuine growth of some kind (e.g. increased returns as a result of higher efficiencies), the story since 1970 has been: _zero sum for everyone but the top few percent, who have seized all gains for themselves_.
"Zero-sum people" are being minted by the millions by our current economy.
When you hoard the upside at historically unprecedented levels, what you get is resentment and an accurate perception that you have been left to fight for scraps.
Those who work and fight within the system for decades at the end of it seek to protect what they perceive they worked for. Even if you changed the incentives on a local (country) level, those with power are pushing for more globalization and providing havens for anyone already with wealth. Its always been this way, but its now at a larger scale, and I feel that most people wish they had something to do to make change happen.