Re: the free software paradigm

Don Geddis wrote:
"Duncan Rose" <duncan.rose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
It's not possible for *everybody* to make a profit. Somebody, somewhere,
has to pay (or do) and make a *loss* (perform a service or sell goods for
'less than they're worth') in order for the economy to work.

Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> wrote on Sun, 23 Jul 2006:
No, no, no. Not at all. The very basis of trading goods is that both
parties do it willingly, in order to be better off. Your profit does
not imply my loss.

Yeah, that paragraph of Duncan's caught my eye too. A little economic
education would seem to be required. Wealth actually increases over time.
Economics is not a zero-sum game.


Apologies to students of economics -- my background is Physics where
nearly everything is a zero sum game.

I actually spent a long time after Thomas posted writing a response,
then cancelling, then writing another; I find it difficult to express
my feelings on the matter in terms an economist would find acceptable,
so it's probably best that I don't bother (and I don't really want to
pull the thread off in yet another direction). However (one day I'll
learn to resist such things, but I feel I will maximize my profit by
doing so (and since this isn't a zero-sum game, and you're all
profiting from this too, aren't you happy about that?)).

1. Wealth increases over time.

True; but the relative wealth gap of the richest and poorest is
growing. The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were
before (ok, economists would call this profit since in objective terms
the poorer are getting richer. I tend to think relative comparison is a
more realistic measure however).

This isn't only measured in hard cash terms; also in mortality rates,
access to health care, access to clean and healthy food (even access to
clean water, for many), and every other metric you can think of. These
things I think should also be included in any 'profit and loss' model.


2. 'everybody profits' seems to require 'everybody has choice'. I don't
believe the latter is true so I find it hard to accept the former.

I work 35 miles from where I live; I could chose to work elsewhere, and
I might even find a job elsewhere, but for now I'm stuck with a
commute. I'd *like* to use public transport to travel -- to my mind
this enables the most people to 'profit' (and it's better for the
environment, or so we can hope). Unfortunately it takes at least 30%
longer to travel using public transport, and costs 2x the amount -- so
I take the cheaper option and join the tin-box club on the long
car-park into work. I guess that that's my choice, and I choose in a
way that maximises my 'profit', but I feel I have no realistic choice,
and this to me is a lose. The truth is I can't *afford* to use public
transport.


3. I bundle up all sorts of concepts like social justice and personal
contentment into my model of profit and loss.

I'm aware of theories on trickle-down effects etc so that even when
being gouged I'm somehow 'profiting'; and in real terms I guess I am (I
certainly live 'better' than my forefathers in 'economic' terms) but
including happiness, job security, confidence in the future (i.e. a
decent pension), even my expected mortality (which I believe is heading
downwards again) etc. etc. I can't help feeling that I'm making a loss
here.


At some point economics must explain why so many people live in poverty
(and since we're not talking about closed systems containing only
western economies here, please include 3rd world populations) when
everybody has had so long to make 'profit'. *These* are the people I
see as 'making a loss'. Are we all getting richer in economic terms?
Perhaps. Are we all actually better off overall (taking into account
all factors)? By my terms, probably not.

I can accept a definition of profit that is 'whatever I do by my own
free will' (but would argue my capacity to truly act of my own free
will is limited -- and the lower down the economic pecking order you go
the more limited it is -- and so I prefer not to use that definition).

In any future discussions I'll use the terms 'win' and 'lose' instead
of 'profit' and 'loss' until I've managed to educate myself further in
economics.

-Duncan


-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don@xxxxxxxxxx
When the chairman introduced the guest speaker as a former illegal alien, I got
up from my chair and yelled, "What's the matter, no jobs on Mars?" When no one
laughed, I was real embarrassed. I don't think people should make you feel
that way. -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the free software paradigm
    ... not imply my loss. ... Economics is not a zero-sum game. ... but I feel I will maximize my profit by ... money to pay for the education which might give them those marketable ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Why unemployment could hit 14%
    ... Maybe the biggest of these problems is that economics is really a branch ... But the boss controls how the spoils of the business are divided ... The problem with profit seeking investment, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... These are firms who ... The word "profit" is one of those words that has an inadequate economic ... If the tax/rent is based on market value of land only then there ... I know something about economics and economic profit. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Do you think "for profit" companies are interested in your health or their wealth?
    ... Do you think "for profit" companies are interested in your health or ... 3% profit margin is acceptable in theoretical global economics, ... capital, but onr eonders if the best methodof raisinfg capita is ... protecting the profits of foreign investors channeling much needed ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Re: Sales drop, stores close, workers fired, yet the market ignores it.
    ... profitable in the short term and the profit comes rather quickly. ... the stock price must drop or the number of shares outstanding must ... its not micro economics ... gain the land or assets of other nations, that always fails, such wars ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)