Live data from Hacker News

The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

effectiviology.com

151–152 of 152 posts

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#151
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people use imagery to illustrate wealth, for example in a video or say the Wikipedia article for wealth ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth ), we see things like gold. Google images for wealth displays jewelry. Expensive cars. Expensive boats. Expensive mansions. Resources would be food, clean water, shelter, land, gasoline, things which purpose fulfill a specific need. I would say that the first thing, wealt…

Well I suggest reading carefully that first paragraph from Wikipedia. It does agree with me but I'll give you that it says it can be context dependent and you are talking about what it is considered "to be wealthy". In that context, I think if you considered the average person a hundred years ago to a average person today, the person today would be considered wealthy (to the person from a hundred years ago). But to q…

You seem to not get my point so let me explain it in a other way.

All resources can represent wealth, status and power, but only if others are excluded from it. For example clean water is not consider wealth in a west-centric point of view where water is free, but in the desert clean water can very much represent wealth. A person who can waste clean water in the desert to plant a garden is wealthy and gains status, while the same person growing the same garden with the same amount of water gain no such status if it next to a fresh water lake in say Sweden.

In the absent of a zero sum game wealth does not exist. This does not mean that resources do not provide benefits. They do. Our ancestors a thousand years had less resources and thus suffered more from the effect of that. If we had a time machine and we traveled back in time we would be more wealthy because we would have resources that they do not.

A easy way to deal with the terminology is to outsource our definition. Wealth is that which a wealth tax taxes. Good medicine provided by the state, for all its extremely high value to society and individual people, is not something that can be taxed through a wealth tax. The very concept would not make any sense. The only thing a wealth tax can tax is wealth. Ipso facto, good medicine provided by a well fare state is not wealth. It great, it is good, it is useful, it is valuable, but wealth it is not.

Re: The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

#152
post #54
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically yes, but the key difference is that those index funds are equally available to rich and poor, and the returns are the same for everyone (mostly). Contrast that with the plethora of wealth-increasing opportunities that are not available without a large initial investment or the connections or power that comes with existing wealth.

They are technically available to the poor but in practice many people can't afford to tie up their money for long periods. If they're forced to take their money out of the fund due to their circumstances, then they could actually lose a lot of it (an economic downturn makes both situations more likely to occur at the same time). Whereas someone who is well off only loses money on paper and can afford to hold on to t…

Thanks, that is a great counterpoint. I'll reconsider my position.
Post reply on HN