It goes hand in hand with the just world fallacy, which, in conjunction is used to justify the position of the currently capital-poor class.
E.G. Because the economy is not zero-sum, those people would have been able to produce wealth for themselves with the same ease as the people who are currently in possession of wealth/capital.
Please don't insult people on this forum.
In terms of your statement: >..."It's not zero-sum" is a popular and lazy fallacy
Simply look at the simplest case. Unless coercion is involved, if I make a trade with someone, the only reason I do it is because I am better off because of the trade or I wouldn't do it. The same goes for the other side of the trade. So we decide to do a trade and both of us are better off than we were before.
Barging into a thread and yelling "economy is not zero sum" is the CS equivalent of doing the same and yelling something like "X is not a good programming language" with no explanation or context. Wouldn't you be considered illiterate in that programming language by someone who uses it?
> So we decide to do a trade and both of us are better off than we were before.
In a vacuum, yes. However, consider that no actual new goods have been produced. Does your example work in the case when one party is unable or unwilling to see the benefit of the trade? Does it work when no new goods can be produced by one of the parties, like in the example of land?
If you want a more detailed statement - in the short run, everything in economics is essentially zero-sum. As we progress towards a longer time frame, it shifts to being non-zero sum, with the exception of intrinsically limited resources.
> Simply look at the simplest case.
Yes, most users of this site look at Economics as some series of simplest case scenarios. I'm standing by this statement until I see evidence to the contrary.
Matter of fact, I have diametrically different positions.
My question to you though, is how the economy being non zero sum is a fallacy. I've had to work directly in economics and finance, so if I got this wrong it would be a huge gap. I'd really like to understand how it's a fallacy.
There is value and then there is intrinsic value aka True value. True value is extracted not created.
Only people who blindly read economic textbooks will take that misguided definition at face value.
But before I get into that real world example... you just threatened to end the discussion if I disagree with you. This is weak. I am telling you I can end this argument not on a mere disagreement... I can end this argument with factual, non-subjective evidence that will prove you wrong.
Now, onto the real world example: Warren Buffet, arguably one of the most successful investors on the planet. Warren Buffet operates on a investment strategy known as investing on intrinsic value. In other words he believes that the market fluctuations of a stock price by the daily subjective valuations of day traders are meaningless, he peers beyond the noise and picks stocks based off of a very real economic concept called "intrinsic value" or a true value separate from the subjective valuations of people. Intrinsic value is a very real and actual concept. Warren Buffet believes it and many many other real world and experienced investors follow the strategy as well. See sources below:
This link is solid proof intrinsic value exists as a theory in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value
This link shows intrinsic value applied in finance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance)
This link shows intrinsic value applied as a stock investment strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing
This is a biography on warren buffet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
Academia and "most people" are not unanimously sided with you. The above argument is solid proof. This is not a mere disagreement and if you end the discussion here it's an admission of total and utter loss.
You didn't provide any "non-subjective evidence" - you just reframed what you think my position is to knock it down.
I'm familiar with value investing. It's not clear to me why you believe the occasional success of value investors is proof in inherent value as a universal economic truth. I haven't claimed anything about value other than that it's subjective- that doesn't preclude, for example, a company's perceived value relying on a number of other subjective values.
Anyway, again, I don't think we're getting anywhere here, and I think framing a discussion as requiring "admission of total and utter loss" to leave is childish and the hallmark of a troll. I'm equal parts embarrassed and impressed that I've been strung along this long.
>I'm familiar with value investing. It's not clear to me why you believe the occasional success of value investors is proof in inherent value as a universal economic truth.
Occasional success? I gave you a person who has year after year of success for around 50 years. There is no quantitative way of expressing this unparalleled success rate as "occasional success." Also what is a universal economic truth? There is no such thing. Economics is a soft science which consists of a bunch of varying theoretical models and schools of thought, none of which (like all science.) can ever be fully "proven" as a universal truth.
I presume you are actually asking whether or not intrinsic value is valid school of thought in the academic landscape? It is. See the economic definition of intrinsic value in the link I posted above. Or google it.
>I haven't claimed anything about value other than that it's subjective- that doesn't preclude, for example, a company's perceived value relying on a number of other subjective values.
Perceived value is subjective and therefore according to your definition a logical interpretation of value. There are many cases where the "Perceived value" of a company is different from the the sum of its parts or other "subjective valuations" in which the company is built upon. This leads to an inherit contradiction in the subjective theory of valuation. Meaning that a company has two different values: The subjective value of the company as a whole and the subjective value of the company as a sum of its parts. A contradiction indicates that this is a highly flawed way of thinking about valuation.
>to leave is childish and the hallmark of a troll.
You insulted me and called me a troll. Am I being the one being childish? I am simply stating facts. If you leave saying we have no subjective common ground when I only offer hard facts. The only logical conclusion is that you are trying to exit the conversation because you have no hard facts to prove your point.
Sure that's a valid possibility. But my hypothesis is valid as well.
One thing is solid though: Your statement is a subliminal personal attack on the "way" I "argue" and has nothing to do with the argument itself.
Perhaps another alternative conclusion is that you have no way of continuing the discussion because you have nothing solid left to say, so you decide to reframe the situation and end it with a cheap excuse that has nothing to do with the argument itself.