Onions/Carrots said:
I am not refuting the creation or destruction of wealth.
Zero sum assumes that there is a fixed amount of a particular good and due to its fixed amount, if someone takes a bigger piece of the pie; that piece is a loss for everyone else. It assumes that wealth is neither created or destroyed, but that its fixed and is simply transferred from one hand to another and that is most fundamentally false! You cannot speak of zero sum while simultaneously claim to not support the most important assumption in such theory.
You can either refer to zero sum or you cannot, but you can?t refer and not refer to it in the same argument.
Onions/Carrots said:
Using comparisons of standards of living with a century ago are also a non-sequitir argument since I am not referring to such a long time span. Obviously betterment has been effected but to demonstrate that causation is attributable to a solution involving a non zero sum one is a spurious relationship IMO. Time spans of that longitude obviously entail variables which binomial relationships do not consider.
No one was comparing standards of living with a century ago, but since you brought this to the table, for the DR comparisons from as recent as 30 or 20 years ago suffice. Since then, the DR has experienced an exponential growth of its middle class and upper class and a subsequent decrease in its lower class, as a percentage of the population. Also, in that same time period, the standards of living of a large segment of the lower class have improved as well. This is not only demonstrated via statistics, but it?s visually obvious by comparing the level of economic activity witnessed today in medium sized cities across the country compared to then. Also, by evaluating the goods and services they consume today, in many cases goods that a mere 30 years ago was reserved for the ruling class.
Additionally, wages in the DR have been increasing during that same time period. In fact, right now wages in the DR are higher than wages in Mexico; despite a mere 20 years ago the complete opposite being true.
Onions/Carrots said:
To as to demonstrate validity in your opinion answer the following.
Name one instance in history where the concentration of wealth has produced a thriving middle class and diminished the level of poverty accordingly. NEVER HAS!
You ask for one instance out of hundreds available! Ireland is a fantastic example. So is Chile, Czech Republic, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia. Countries that currently are going through that process includes Brazil, our very own Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama, Botswana, Thailand, so on and so forth.
Examples of countries that have shown a lack of concentration of wealth and, consequently, failed in producing a thriving middle class and diminish its poverty includes our neighbor Haiti, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Nepal, Congo, Nigeria, etc.
Onions/Carrots said:
A growing population chasing dwindling resources will only produce few winners and many losers. In true Malthusian fashion, the end result is the concentration of those scarce resources in very few hands with an ever increasing population barely being able to maintain a subsistence level mode of existence.
So now you are refuting the creation/destruction of wealth? I thought that?s what you said you were not refuting? :ermm:
Anyway, it?s true that with a growing population and a fixed amount of resources, that would result in a complete collapse of society. The problem is that since the death of Trujillo (and even during his regime) the DR has been experiencing not just a steady increase in productivity with its fastest gains occurring from the mid-1990s onward, but simultaneously the population growth rate has been on a steady decline; in fact, the population as a whole is aging for the first time in decades, the average age in the DR is going up.
What does this mean for the DR?
1. Productivity is increasing at a higher rate than population growth, which means every year that passes Dominican society becomes richer. These increases may not be too noticeable on a year by year basis, but in the course of 10, 20, 30 years; the differences become obvious to the naked eye.
2. Since productivity growth in the DR is mostly due to new investments, the amount of wealth the country has is not fixed, but rather it?s growing. Because it?s not fixed, it?s not being transferred, but rather everyone involved wins. Now, who gets how much depends on the risks taken. You can?t expect a person that took zero risk to be compensated the same as a person that took tremendous risks. The people/companies that are willing to take the risks are the one?s investing and that result in the creation of new jobs that didn?t exist before, on the creation of a new source of wealth that didn?t exist before for the people, the government, the investors, etc. The investors win, the country wins, the newly employed people wins. This has a ripple effect through the economy since dependent sectors also expand to satisfy the increase in demand and that leads to greater productivity growth, job growth, etc. Wealth is not being transferred from one group to another because its being
created at all levels. Its not fixed, hence someone's gain is not someone else's loss. The gain of one person is not the result of taking the wealth of someone else since the wealth being created at all levels is a completely new source that didn't exist before.
The problem with Malthusian Theory, which has been discredited to a degree few other things have, is that it assumes that nothing changes. It?s based on linear predictions without taking into account the ingenuity of the human mind in utilizing new methods/technology to increase production.
For example, according to Malthusian theory, humanity should have never reached the 6 billion mark. After all, thousands of years ago, humans were nothing more than hunters and gatherers. Under such system the number of humans that could survive would be very limited given the limited resources - mostly available game for hunting. We accept the theory that humans first came to existence in Africa and knowing that the Sahara Desert blocks the north from the central and southern Africa; then humans should had never emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa to start with! What happened?
As population growth created pressures on the ?fixed? resources, the human brain developed a new way of doing things, farming. Voila! The maximum population capacity was ?miraculously? increased and the Malthusian demise was averted.
But, what happened when basic agriculture in one particular area was not enough to feed the ever growing population?
Humanity increased its productivity once again by immigrating to other areas where basic farming was possible; thus increasing even more the maximum population capacity.
But, what happened when that was not enough to sustain the ever growing human population?
Humanity devised new ways of farming by incorporating new technology. It first started with basic stone tools and through the centuries those tools were refined to increase the productivity to even higher levels.
Fast forward to today and now humanity is growing tomatoes in the middle of deserts and we number in the billions!
If Malthusian Theory was even remotely correct, humanity would still be confined to a few hunter and gathering tribes in sub-Saharan Africa!
Humans are creatures that through thought and desire create our own reality beyond the limitations that the less decisive can?t phantom being overcome.
That is the most fundamental aspect of success at anything, how ironic ironic that its also the most fundamental aspect in the discrediting of Malthusian Theory and in the survival of the human species.
Onions/Carrots said:
Using such hyperbole such as false, erroneous, wrong and incorrect is claptrap and a simpleton's game.
The truth is never a hyperbole.
Your zero sum assumption in a situation where its non zero sum is leading you to reach erroneous conclusions. That differentiation is what makes socialistic theory unfeasible and capitalistic theory much more feasible. If it wasn't for the fact that socialism is based on an assumption of zero sum, I would had become a socialist.
But zero sum doesn't apply to economies as a whole and explains why socialism has become a failure where ever it was implemented with full vigor.
A society's wealth can be created or destroyed, its not fixed. If you understand why it is so, then you would understand why economies in general are non zero sum. And if you understand that, then I've done my job.
In the mean time, here are two reports that I think you should invest some time in reading. It would be to your benefit.
Estimaciones y proyecciones de poblaci?n 1950-2050, Rep. Dom. Tomo I
Estimaciones y proyecciones de poblaci?n 1950-2050, Rep. Dom. Tomo II
-NALs
