The World is More Zero Sum Than We Let On (Part I)

Who is richer, the First World college graduate working at their job in a city earning a respectable 65 thousand dollars per year, or the African chief with the largest mud hut in the village? The college graduate has access to limitless amounts of entertainment, clothing, a car and many other material objects which aren’t easily in the grasp of the African chief. Yet the African chief feels richer. Far richer than the college grad likely could ever feel than in their (more moderate) fantasies, for the African chief is the richest man in his village. It appears as though merely an increase in material goods will not increase perceived wealth.

Perceived wealth is social status, and social status is zero sum -- plain and simple. People primarily measure their success relative to those around them and secondarily based on those who they may not see but know of. Two examples of the latter may be a Nigerian with internet access watching a video or movie which allows him to compare London to his own city, or a Londoner watching a documentary set in Somalia showcasing their material poverty and the Londoner being able to compare it with his own “poverty”. The sting of being the poorest in your school or nation in a First World country is only *very slightly* reduced by being reminded that you are still materially wealthier than most of the world.

In every system, social status shows itself to be zero sum, with some systems having more equitable distributions of social status and others being less equitable. In an aristocratic system (such as Sparta) or bureaucratic system (such as North Korea) with significant markets absent this is most apparent; there are only so many acres of land with serfs or government positions of significance to be had. In market systems it is less formal and a tad more abstract. Owning a car makes one feel wealthy when very few people around them own a car, but there is no beneficial effect when over 80% of the population owns a car, only the negative effect if one does not own a car. Eating wheat-based white bread was a sign of affluence and made one feel proud and important when the average people eat crappy barley bread, but today such a luxury is not even considered a luxury. I’m sure you dear reader can yourself think of many such examples.

The nature of feelings of wealth being zero sum should take the wind out of the sails of those who believe that economic expansion will deliver improvements to the population. The only time where the majority of the population will perceive itself as wealthy is when there is a dramatic increase in wealth within the lifetime of an individual or (among the more far-sighted), their parents. This rare condition is what China experienced from 1990-2020, and the United States from 1945-1970. Although I suspect that reflections on being wealthier than one’s parents provides an effect of equivalent magnitude to a First Worlder in poverty who understands that they are wealthier than the majority of the planet. That being, not much.

Perceived wealth being zero sum attacks the axiom of both market liberals and democratic socialists. This is the belief that the increase in material wealth of the majority of the population is not only possible, but should be the direction that society should be oriented towards. The reality is that after the first generation, no matter how generous the social policy is, it will be taken for granted and the return of angst and anger is inevitable. No matter how much material conditions improved through free trade policy and industrialisation, angst and anger will return. This process is at its early stage in China, and is at a more advanced stage in Europe, Japan, South Korea, the United States and its various English- speaking appendages.

Perhaps the levelling off of wealth inequality will reduce some of the jealousy, but not nearly enough to make the population ever feel materially satisfied, especially after the first generation.

Am I arguing for communism or free markets? Neither, as they both have argued objectives (improving the lot of the general population) that are only possible to meet for a few short years until even in the best possible realistic scenario attitudes adjust and the majority feel materially unsatisfied again. What about arguments that communism is less effective at achieving economic growth and creating wealth for its population? Such arguments are not relevant as the additional angst from a lowered standard of living is temporary and the baseline angst will return. We must seek to move past arguing over which economic system optimises the material wealth of the majority population, as such discussion is futile. Within a generation, any optimisation will be taken for granted, and there will be a large contingent of the population who will always feel poor, a smaller contingent that feels wealthy and another that feels somewhat in the middle. Find another topic to dedicate your mental energy.

Support my work by donating to my Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/bluevir

Donate