Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <7800928@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 18:49:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800928
Posted: Mon Jan 27 18:49:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:36:55 EST
References: <1066@ihlpa.UUCP>
Lines: 58
Nf-ID: #R:ihlpa:-106600:inmet:7800928:177600:2825
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan 27 18:49:00 1986


>/* Written  9:30 am  Jan 24, 1986 by doit@ihlpa in inmet:net.politics */
>/* ---------- "Re.: Politics and Ethics -- Sociali" ---------- */
>In <318@drutx.UUCP> David Olson writes in reply to Tim Sevener:
>
>Another point: your concept of wealth control bothers me.  The market
>is not a zero-sum game.  Just because someone became wealthier, does not
>*necessarily* mean that someone else became poorer.  Because some people
>control more wealth, does not mean that others *must* control less.
>
>For instance, I have a garden in my back yard that produces much of the
>food (a form of wealth) eaten at my home almost all year long.  Because
>my garden flourishes, does not mean that someone else's garden has to
>perish.  Because I control my garden and enjoy food that comes from it,
>does not mean that someone somewhere in the world has been made hungrier.
>David Olson
>..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
>
>
>Let me explain the concept of "wealth control" to you, using
>your garden-example and expanding it.
>
>Nobody in the world is necessarily hungrier because you control
>your garden, but with your decision, whether to let participate 
>others in the benefits of your garden or not, you make a
>difference for those who are involved. The difference might
>be negligible for those who don't care or don't depend on your
>caring for them; for those who depend on your charity, this
>difference is essential. You exercise power over those who
>depend on you by deciding how/if/when... you distribute your
>goods; not everybody is fortunate enough to have a garden...
>
>(Note in this context: for everybody whom you give more, somebody
>else gets less. The  market, that re-distributes 
>limited resources, is a zero-sum game).

Nope!  There's no MARKET here -- because you've made the assumption
that the garden-owner is distributing his produce by charity rather
than by participation in his market.

A market is absolutely NOT a zero-sum game -- if it were, nobody
would bother to spend money because their net benefit could not
be increased nor decreased in so doing.  To put it another way,
I participate in a market (buy a widget) because I want the 
widget more than I want the money involved.  The seller
wants the money more than the widget.

Whatever you may think about the morality by which widgets are
not distributed free, both the buyer and the seller now have more
than they had.  This is called a POSITIVE-sum game because the
participants experience a net benefit.

It's fine to talk about non-market systems as being zero-sum,  but
please: the net is uninformed enough without the further spreading of
incorrect notions.  Of course, it's possible you meant something else
by "zero-sum", or "market", but I doubt it.  It's also possible I
misunderstood what you're saying, in which case I invite
clarification.