
This isn’t a zero-sum game - jmorin007
http://bluntobject.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/this-isnt-a-zero-sum-game/
======
brlittle
How is it, I wonder, that so many people get bent around the idea of making an
economic analysis out of this? We're talking here about a _playroom_ , the
very nature and substance of which means that the teachers should be primarily
concerned with making sure everyone has equitable access to the "resources" --
i.e. the toys.

I think one can argue whether or not the teachers are doing that in an
effective and appropriate way, certainly. But I believe that this one
underlying fact is nonnegotiable.

Personally, and as a parent, I find the repeated and forceful attempts to turn
this into some kind of capitalist vs. socialist laboratory are both ill-
conceived and ill-advised. Whatever else may be true of the situation, I
believe it is certainly no place to institute a Lego-fied re-enactment of
_Lord of the Flies_.

~~~
h34t
Are you talking about the teachers making an economic analysis out of the lego
game, or the internet-comments making economic analysis out of what the
teachers did?

If the former, then I can at least understand your point, though I would
disagree (I think that going through a simulation like this is a very
interesting way to teach kids about economics and power, and I wish I'd had
teachers who spent that much attention on trying to teach their students
things they felt were important in life).

If the latter, than it sounds like you misunderstood what the teachers did and
why they did it. They were _not_ primarily interested in the organizing a
system that would merely provide kids with equitable access to toys in the
playroom. They were interested in teaching the children their own version of
how economics and social justice should be understood _in real life_ , a
version which many people (including me) take issue with for its fundamental
lack of awareness of how wealth is created, and the effects of a system of
organization on that wealth creation process.

------
duncanr
The kids in the post add value by building more complex structures out of the
raw materials, no? Does the author of the article think we have an infinite
supply of raw materials? I read the original article as an experiment into
control of raw materials rather than an experiment of added value vs. zero-
sum.

As much as economists may dislike it, these arguments seem to always boil down
to 'who has control of the raw materials'; those that are empowered are happy
with the current system, and those that are not empowered are not. The
efficiencies of the market, and whether it's zero-sum or not, would seem to be
a secondary concern for most participants.

~~~
gibsonf1
Raw materials are less limited than most people think. The usual scenario is
that as a raw material gets scarcer, the price for it goes up. With the price
higher, firms are incentivized to spend more on technology to reach formerly
unreachable raw resources, etc. This is why we've been running out of oil for
about 100 years - the price goes up, technology is deployed, etc. And if we
really did start to run out of oil, then the value of energy would go up
creating demand for alternates as the price now pays for greater technological
breakthroughs, etc.

So, to make a long story short, the idea that resources are a zero-sum game is
also incorrect in the sense that the underlying value can be found given
enough ingenuity unleashed with the profit motive.

So the lego example is in no way a reflection of the real world, and if I
could give this blog post a larger up vote, I would.

~~~
mynameishere
This is why resource reserves are usually accompanied by a price per unit:

[http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-
reser...](http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm)

 _The global uranium reserves with mining costs up to US $ 80 per kilogram
amount to about 2 million tonnes_ ... _If mining costs of up to 130 $/kg are
taken into consideration the global uranium reserves are increased by further
3 million tonnes._

At some price, it will become possible to extract trace uranium from ocean
water, of which there is quite a bit.

------
xirium
From the article: "It's plenty obvious that free commerce is not a zero-sum
game. I go to the liquor store to buy beer. I buy five bottles of Staropolskie
Zlote for about ten bucks. I value the beer more than I value the ten bucks --
else I wouldn't have given the clerk my money. The liquor store values my ten
bucks more than the beer -- else they wouldn't have sold it to me. We both
come away from the exchange happier: I have my beer, they have their money. We
both get what we wanted. The world is, in fact, a better place after that
exchange than it was before... at least for me and for the liquor store."

From the article: "One firm adds value by trucking the beer from the brewery
to a port. Another firm adds value by shipping the beer across the Atlantic. A
third firm adds value by shipping the beer across Canada, and yet a fourth
firm adds value by providing a broad selection of beers in a relatively
convenient place for my buying pleasure."

Congratulations. You've discovered Pareto efficiency (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency> ), the means by which goods
are distributed.

~~~
davidw
I thought that goods were distributed with trucks:->

------
toffer
I keep seeing comments about how the original builders of Legotown were
unjustly punished for being successful little proto-capitalists. The argument
goes something like: "They added value to their raw materials and created
something great and beautiful. Then they were struck down for being better
than their peers, and all the children were doomed to a life of uniform
mediocrity."

To me, the story of Legotown was not one about capitalism. The questions about
whether the builders added value to their Lego brick raw materials, and
whether the trading game only allowed zero-sum transactions are irrelevant to
the larger point of the story.

To me, the story of Legotown is about legitimate and illegitimate authority.

By what right did the original builders of Legotown assert their authority
over the Legos? Why were they able to make the rules about who could use the
Legos and who couldn't? Because they got their first? Because they built the
best, most elaborate structures? Because they were bigger? There were no
classroom rules that allowed them to claim ownership of the Legos. Instead,
they took control of the Legos by force and simply asserted their right to
make the rules about them.

Yes, capitalism requires adding value to raw materials and ability to trade
freely, but it also requires the rule of law that is accepted as legitimate by
its participants. If there had been rules about claiming ownership of toys in
the classroom, then the builders could have followed those rules and then
enforced their own rules about things that they owned. But, in the absence of
such a governing framework, they cannot simply assert that they own something,
and then expect others to accept their authority.

That's also the real point of the trading game. It wasn't to model capitalism.
It was to show the children how it felt to be treated in a system ruled by
arbitrary, illegitimate power. By what right do the holders of all the green
Legos get to make the rules? Why should their power be considered legitimate?
The answer is it shouldn't, because tilting the game in favor of the green
Lego holders is obviously arbitrary and unjust. And, if it's unfair for the
green Lego holders to make the rules in the trading game, how is that
different than the original builders making all the rules about who can and
cannot participate in Legotown?

In the end, the children earned back the Legos. But, it wasn't because they
agreed to a more "Socialist" set of rules imposed by the teachers. Instead, it
was because the children came together and agreed to a set of rules that
reflected their values of fairness and justice. And, because the rules were
the result of their input, the children considered them to be legitimate.

------
bocajuniors
but still, not even america is a purelely capitalistic society,you do have
some socialism in the blend.and the 20 or so western nations with higher
standard of living are even less capitalistic.so in the trade off between the
two ideas i think america should move towards socialism.of course there are
other nations that should do the opposite

~~~
gibsonf1
It is the socialism in the blend of the US economy that drags us down as well
as in other blended countries such as in Europe.

~~~
brlittle
Please cite your evidence for how we are being "dragged down," and please cite
a purely capitalist society that rivals our own (or those of Western Europe).
I'm willing to consider evidence, but not an unfounded assertion like this.

~~~
gibsonf1
The examples are numerous - please look around. Simple examples would include
the rent control policies in New York and San Francisco. The intention:
provide low cost rent for tenants at the expense of landlords. The reality:
because of the rent control, the ROI for entering the rental business declined
dramatically. This caused less development of rental units and rapidly
increasing rents for the scarcer supply left. The result of rent control:
chronically higher rents for all but those lucky enough to already be renting
and a chronic under-supply of rental units. Other classic examples are the
minimum wage which increases unemployment, medicare/Medicaid which drives up
the cost of health care for all, excessive taxation to pay for all of the
entitlements which is a disincentive to business, etc.

~~~
brlittle
Despite which, the US economy remains one of the largest and most productive
in the free world. Your examples do not support your assertion.

According to both the IMF and the World Bank, the world's 10 largest economies
in 2006 were, in order, the EU, the US, Japan, Germany, the PRC, the UK,
France, Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil. Very mixed economies, every one. I
really don't see how this supports the idea that they're being "dragged down."

~~~
gibsonf1
Do you understand the point that the result of rent control is less rental
units for renters, higher prices for renters, and less profit for landlords?
How is that not dragging down what would otherwise be a sphere of creativity
of landlords going out of their way to provide greater value to renters (to
increase their profits) if the regulations were removed?

Also, how does the fact that the US economy does well in comparison to other
more socialist countries in any way show that removing the socialist controls
we have now would not improve our economy even more?

~~~
brlittle
Yes, I understand that.

I maintain that it doesn't support your argument that our economy is being
dragged down. You may argue that it's not growing at the rate you think it
would, and I can respond by arguing that the resulting society isn't one I'd
want to live in -- that's a different discussion. But the general trend of
growth year over in real GDP
([http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalR...](http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealGDPValues.xls))
is not evidence of being "dragged down." The trend is broadly up.

Regarding your second point, this is a canard. The fact that the 10 largest,
most successful economies in the world (in fact, most if not all of the top
20) incorporate elements of socialism (most to a much greater degree than the
US) demonstrates that mixed economies can, and do, succeed. Your initial
argument at least implies that a mixed economy is not a successful one. If I
read that incorrectly, please tell me, because by most metrics, mixed
economies are not only surviving, but prospering.

