The Zero-Sum Syndrome

Top 8. Jun 6, 1999 3:51 PM

» LarryW_4 - Counterevidence

JS Mill offers the following exception to the "grow or die" principle of frontier theory:
Australia until the 18th century. Several thousand years occupation of the same territory, in harmony with nature and without problems.

Doubtless, many North American tribes would make the same claim.

It is not the geographical size of the country, but its isolation that allowed the Australian hunter-gatherer culture to persist for so long. The arrival of Europeans ended that, of course. Climate change might have done the same, or the fortuitous arrival of a new parasite (other than Europeans).

Even so, I doubt that the Aborigines really "occupied the same territory" for very long, except in the broadest geographical sense. More likely, their growth model followed the pattern of other pre-industrial populations. Groups fissioned when they reached a critical size, thus occupying more territory.

What might be most instructive in terms of frontier theory is to study how pre-European Australian society handled its outcasts.

-- posted by LarryW_4

Top 9. Jul 31, 1999 1:19 AM

» RalphZ - Zero-Sum Games

The simple analogy of the zero-sum game can readily be applied to a host of topics in the "real world". However, it is always best to exercise caution when doing so because the problem with a theoretical framework that explains everything is that it really explains nothing. There are no testable hypotheses to be derived from description of the complicated social dynamics you are touching on here as "zero-sum" games.

Now, having said that, I would say there are some very clear zero-sum games on this planet. Foremost, is the quantity of territory that exists. Territorial expansion of any state in the present is necessarily at the expense of another. This was not formally true one hundred years ago.

Economics can never be viewed in quite the same manner. Most economists would argue that it is a not a zero-sum game. Economic transactions, unlike territorial transactions, can provide a "win" for both parties. (E.g., I've got more steel than I need, you've got more aluminum than you need, I need aluminum, you need steel, so let's trade.) Historically, economic transactions have resulted in benefits for all participants -- though not necessarily equal benefits. Where is the evidence that economics is zero-sum (either in the present or in the past)?

Issues of economic growth, Third World (or developing nations) development, post-Cold War order, etc are all definitely not zero-sum games. Much of the commentary provided here seems to suggest that the currently popular ideological acceptance of market economics is somehow an inevitable feature of the present day and furthermore that it is a zero-sum game. Neither of these positions is correct, assuming I'm reading this stuff properly (it's late so who knows).

This also applies to the historical development of the modern (industrial age) western states and the assumption of the necessity of growth. These are both recent occurances. Five hundred years ago, such ideas would have been without the context and consequently without meaning. Who is to say that five hundred years hence the same will not also be true? (Sorry about the double negative but it reads better.)

-- posted by RalphZ

Top 10. Aug 1, 1999 3:52 PM

» LarryW_4 - World War II Was a Result of Zero-Sum Economics

The zero-sum idea, while certainly not perfect, explains much of human behavior in the same way that Newtonian physics explains much of cosmology. As to what's testable, World War II appears to have had zero-sum origins. Weren't both Germany and Japan, Japan in particular, on a hunt for resources? With a frontier, the war would never have erupted. Without one, it was inevitable. As is the next, if we ignore the principle.

Economics is not inherently a zero-sum game, of course. It is that only in the absence of a frontier, which is sometimes defined as "resources without proprietors".

-- posted by LarryW_4

Top 11. Aug 2, 1999 2:51 PM

» RalphZ - Games, Frontiers, WWII and Economics

There is a difference between explaining (I think better terms would be rationalizing or describing) an event by reference to a theoretical framework and predicting an event by reference to a theory.

Newtonian physics, for example, predicts the outcome of natural events on the basis of a series of assumptions. It is testable through experimentation. When the predictions are shown to be incorrect from observation of experiments, it is possible to alter the assumptions and repeat the experiment. This process either improves the theoretical framework or causes a new framework to be created.

Zero-sum games are a special case in game theory and your statement that this particular set of games "explains much of human behavior" is flawed. Rather than belabor the point I will leave you with the following quote to ponder:

"...it is crucial that the social scientist recognize that game theory is not descriptive, but rather (conditionally) normative. It states neither how people do behave nor how they should behave in an absolute sense, but how they should behave if they wish to achieve certain ends."
R. Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa, Games and Decisions

I hope this clears up the misconception about the usefulness of zero-sum games when applied to real-world social interactions as a description.

Regarding the origins of World War II, I would have to disagree with your interpretation. In my opinion, it would be a significant over-simplification to describe the origins of the war as a "hunt for resources". Numerous other motivations can be attributed to both the Nazi German and Japanese leadership. You might consider a look at AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War (not for the conclusions necessarily but for an introduction to the vast number of proposed "causes" for the war).

Furthermore, I would suggest that your claim that the existance of a frontier would have prevented this war is unfounded. For the sake of the argument, let's say there had been a frontier for Germany to exploit. How would this have altered its determination to remilitarize the Rhineland (it's own territory), assimilate Austria (which had been prevented from joining Germany of its own free will immediately after the First World War), recover the "Polish Corridor" (which was a creation of the Treaty of Versailles) and ultimately to repossess Alasce-Lorraine (which France took back after WWI)? These disputes had historical and political dimensions that go beyond a simple desire from more territory or resources. At least, that is my opinion.

Finally, with respect to the interpretation of economics "in the absence of a frontier" being described as a zero-sum game, I see no reason for this conclusion. As I stated previously, exchange can and often is mutually beneficial, i.e., non-zero-sum. Both parties to an exchange can "win". How would the example (of an exchange of steel for aluminium) I provided in my previous post be defined as zero-sum? This example is typical of economic transactions that happen every day. In my opinion, you have some serious explaining to do concerning your premise that economics is "zero-sum... in the absence of a frontier".

-- posted by RalphZ

Top 12. Aug 2, 1999 11:14 PM

» JS_Mill - As far as I can see

As far as I can see, "Frontier Theory" repeats a lot of what Marx said about capitalism's need for constant accumulation and expansion. I think it's not sufficiently recognised that the phenomena described are particular to the capitalist mode of production, rather than being general truths about human nature. The Maori lived for hundreds of years without a frontier, as did the Thai.

jsm

-- posted by JS_Mill

Top 13. Aug 9, 1999 4:06 PM

» LarryW_4 - Re: Games, Frontiers, WWII and Economics

I do not ignore the citation of barter (a trade of steel for aluminum) as an example of a non-zero-sum transaction. I am surprised at the suggestion that this kind of exchange is in conflict with the zero-sum economics of enclosure. (The earth is enclosed in that no economically significant resources enter from outside and people cannot leave.) As an aside, I have to challenge the statement, presented as fact, that such exchanges take place "every day", or at all, without the use of currency. Perhaps a non-hypothetical example would clarify the point.

In any case, barter is a form of mutually beneficial exchange which, in the example of raw materials, can create a lasting bond between partners to the exclusion of others. This is clearly a zero-sum proposition. Even if the relationship is transitory, there is nothing in it which precludes a net zero-sum condition. Viewed from a global standpoint, there is just so much material on the planet. Some of it can be recycled, but, by the second law of thermodynamics, not all of it. Also, energy, another finite resource, is required to do the recycling. The finiteness of material resources is not easily disputable, even though the single-sector Forester model of the world economy often is disputed.

As a matter of observation (mine), mutually beneficial relationships do occur in enclosed, zero-sum, economies. They are formed with the purpose of protection and confiscation of wealth from weaker entities. Gangs form for this reason. More complicated social reasoning is not required to explain the phenomenon. So, by Occam's razor, the same principle that makes the Copernican model of the solar system preferable, a priori, to the Ptolemaic one, this simple model is probably best.

We don't want to argue semantics here, so if anyone wishes to propose a different terminology, other than zero-sum, to describe enclosed economies, please feel free. Both the concept and the terminology have been applied to discourse about capitalism by R.L. Rubenstein in The Age of Triage and, of course, Karl Marx in Capital. (By the way, Marx would undoubtedly be gratified to see how far England has progressed in the direction of socialism, if not outright state ownership of the means of production. And England is not alone. A new frontier might reverse this effect, as the old one mitigated England's problems with capitalist industrialization in the nineteenth century. See "A Christmas Carol".)

Enclosure on a regional scale (actually, on an unrecognized global scale) is precisely what made pre-war Japan go after the natural resources of southeast Asia, made it fear interference from the American Pacific fleet and ultimately caused it to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor. The Third Reich rose primarily on the promise to its people of renewed access to resources, including territory, which we have agreed is a fixed quantity. The excuses given by diplomats for launching the war are largely irrelevant. Maybe Germany was unfairly treated after World War I. Maybe real estate was carved up inappropriately. But Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist Workers' Party still had to convince the German people to support them, and they had to do this initially without the use of force. If Germany had had an active frontier to draw upon, I think it unlikely that Hitler would have succeeded. The objects of his rhetoric would have been too busy getting rich to listen.

Expansionist behavior goes back a long way, more than five hundred years. The Spanish and Portuguese of the fifteenth century demonstrated a clear idea of the need for constant growth, as we find in Samuel Eliot Morison's biography of Christopher Columbus Admiral of the Ocean Sea.

All of the above arguments rest on the European capitalist/consumer model, which the world seems to accept as desirable, if immitation is any measure. We can still locate persons who extoll the virtues of union with nature, but they tend to live in Boston, Paris or London, suggesting a certain lack of seriousness. I can think of no one but Democrats who think that socialism is a good idea.

Nevertheless, the principles of frontier theory, the zero-sum effects of enclosure among them, do seem to be universal, even to the extent of affecting animals. In the case of the rats in John Calhoun's experiments (see "Universe 25"), the limiting resource is the number of places in the community's social structure. (Not all resources need to be limited to achieve zero-sum effects, just a critical one.)

Primitive human tribes, I believe, have to achieve a certain distance from one another to survive, even though they may not engage in frontier development on a macroscopic scale.

Frontier theory should indeed be testable. It is, as suggested in "Universe 25". And it should be the objective of historiography to bring the objectivity of science to the study of the past for the purpose of predicting the future. That is my aim, and I solicit your assistance. I do ask that participants be as specific as possible as to their sources, and that they provide, if possible, links to instructive web sites.

-- posted by LarryW_4

Top 14. Aug 12, 1999 7:45 PM

» RalphZ - Critique of Zero-Sum Frontier Theory

You'll have to forgive the length of this post. It represents a response to a wide ranging series of issues brought up in last response to me.

Finite Resources or Enclosure
In the conceivable future, the assumption that the earth's material resources are finite does not have much substance. New resources are being discovered. Known resources are being exploited more intensely. Technology has not reached a meaningful limit in this respect and there are several "frontiers" that have not been tapped. The ocean floors, Siberia, the Amazon basin, the Canadian north, Antarctica are all examples.

It is possible that at some distant point in time the demand for resources will exceed the supply but that is pure speculation. Other issues arise. We cannot usefully predict the supply or demand for resources in one hundred years from now -- much less one thousand years from now. So, if the theoretical, long term limits to resources available on this planet is a central feature of the perspective you espouse, there is little basis for this assertion in the real world.

Energy resources are definitely not finite in any meaningful sense. Solar energy through various transformations constitutes the bulk of the energy on this planet. I don't lose much sleep worrying about the eventual exhaustion of the supply. A lot can happen in five billion years. Sunlight, of course, is also evidence of a lack of enclosure to the earth's system as well. Every day, some energy is delivered to the planet and some energy is lost to space.

The special case of humans on this planet is likewise open to debate. Individuals "enter" and "leave" the earth daily through the processes of births and deaths. Now, death might not be your first choice of a means for "leaving the planet" but it is an option. Depending on how you want to read history, several historical examples exist for such an argument. Wars, famine, plagues, etc. can all be viewed as means of having people "leave" the planet. Packing up and moving to Mars is not the only way.

Wars and Frontiers
The historical examples of frontier regions presented in this discussion, and throughout this topic area, do not support a correlation between the existence of a frontier and an absence of war. Indeed, the examples support the opposite observation. These so-called frontiers created conflict among established modern states, which competed to acquire control of the frontiers. Sweden, Spain, Holland, Britain, France, Russia and eventually Italy, Germany, Mexico, the USA and Japan each fought with one or more of the others to establish their control of a given frontier. This is not intended to be an exhaustive listing. However, it should be sufficient to suggest that a state which engages in colonial acquisition is likely to encounter competing states. A state will come into conflict with others as a result of competition for colonies and this will at various points in time result in war.

Furthermore, the historical examples of frontiers given here conveniently ignore the culturally specific vantage point from which such observations are made. The Americas, for example, were occupied by humans long before European explorers arrived. To suggest that the Americas were a frontier only highlights a Euro-centric mindset, i.e., the Americas were not occupied by Europeans. The fact that Europeans ultimately established themselves throughout the Americas merely suggests implications for a civilization that encounters a technologically advanced civilization. The American frontier, for a more specific example, was not simply occupied but conquered through a series of wars with Aboriginal tribes. This should be sufficient to suggest that warfare is at the core of European expansion into the historical examples of frontiers of the last five hundred years.

World War II Explained?
I must take issue with your glib dismissal of the complex events that produced the Second World War.

To suggest that, if only there had been "an active frontier" for the Germans to exploit, the war would have never happened is incredible. Consider my discussion on wars and frontiers for some perspective.

To suggest that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party achieved power in Germany through the "promise to its people of renewed access to resources" and that this was done "initially without the use of force" is also incredible. Hitler's primary promises related to reestablishing Germany's great power status in light of Versailles and economic recovery in light of the Great Depression. Those promises led to the establishment of the Wehrmacht and the Autobahn to name two results. Social violence, some of it initiated by the Nazis, was a factor in the rise of Nazism in Germany. The Weimar election process was not pretty. Even so, the NSDAP never achieved more than one third of the popular vote. Further violence and political intrigue were necessary to achieve absolute power. There was little popular interest in Lebensraum during the rise of Hitler.

To suggest that Japan's imperialistic expansions were the simple result of finite resources (enclosure) on a regional or global scale is equally incredible. You might have a case if you emphasized the closing off of trade in the inter-war period and the need to develop new markets because of it. China, in terms of the sense you espouse, was a frontier for Japan, America and the USSR. Japanese expansion into China brought it into conflict with the states competing for access to this frontier. To suggest, though, that this led to war ignores the denial of access to critical resources resulting from America's belligerent position with respect to Japanese expansion in the Asian frontier.

To suggest that the diplomacy of the inter-war period, the "explanations" given by diplomats, are "largely irrelevant" is, again, incredible. The negotiations leading to Munich, the Anglo-French guarantee to Poland, the Nazi-Soviet Pact, American lend-lease and the oil embargo of Japan and the like are all events that demonstrated (changing) intentions by the parties concerned and produced conditions in which a war could break out.

I hope that this shows you why I view your perspective on World War II as simplistic. Perhaps it would be helpful if you would read one of the general histories of the Second World War. There are several available at any given time in any general bookstore.

Capitalism, Socialism and Frontiers
Capitalism as a mode of production has been in existence for about two hundred years. Unless you want to believe in some version of the current "end of history" argument, its present forms do not represent some ultimate form of social production. Unless you're a fan of Ayn Rand, it does not represent a quasi-religious truth about human nature and social order either.

Your identification of the development and survival of capitalism with the existence of so-called frontiers is untenable. So-called frontiers existed a long time before capitalism, there is no basis for asserting that capitalism developed from the existence of frontiers. Capitalism's survival in its nineteenth century form was not going to happen regardless of whether there was a frontier somewhere. Whether or not a revolution was going to happen depended on the adaptability of the capitalist elite. The solution in England, a Bismark-like, revolution from above removed the most pressing social issues of the day. If you have read the Communist Manifesto, you should realize that many practical points laid down by Marx have essentially been accepted by all western industrialized states.

Why would the existence of a so-called frontier today preserve modern capitalism as the form of social production in England or anywhere else? I would dispute that it did so in the nineteenth century. Capitalism has changed dramatically in the past 100 years and continues to do so. Its survival, thus far, is creditable to the dynamism of its elites and the form as a mode of production more so than the existence, or nonexistence, of frontiers. We have no frontiers, in your terms, but we still have capitalism.

Furthermore, an ideological position embraced by some American elites at the end of the twentieth century does not define the future of capitalism. I would suggest it is more likely an attempt to preserve a social order that is under increasing popular pressure to change -- towards a more socialist model in your terms. After all, there are more people who identify themselves as Democrats than there are people who identify themselves as Republicans.

The attempts to redefine state intervention in the economic sphere can also be partially explained by the observation of higher growth rates in the so-called developing world. A similar, but opposite, "socialization" process took place in the 1950s when the socialist model was observed to produce higher growth rates. Perhaps all of this could better be seen in terms of a political discourse among the elites of the developed world on which economic form produces the highest rate of growth.

One thing that is certain is that no one, perhaps with the exception of some of the radical libertarians, would suggest a return to the capitalist model of the late nineteenth century or the pre-Great Depression era. Basically, we all (or at least an overwhelming majority) agree on the need for state intervention in society and the economy, but we do debate the level of intervention. The nineteenth century model of capitalism was effectively and totally discredited by the Great Depression. Without state intervention a free market can end up in a non-cyclical, spiraling down turn from which no recovery will occur. It is a lesson some individuals have conveniently ignored in the current ideological discourse on economics. Not surprisingly, they have not forgotten it in the practical intervention that all states engage in every day.

Economic Zero-Sum-Ness
While the original terms of my intervention in this thread assumed that you were making reference to the concept of zero-sum games, it is clear now that you are making far broader use of the term zero-sum. In general, you seem to be using it as an alternative to some form of the phrase "winners and losers".

In references to economic activity, you seem to have suggested that there is some sort of ultimate zero-sum-ness. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. I have already disputed your claim of finite resources and/or enclosure -- and I invite you to clarify you position on this matter. I can only assume that your reference to an ultimate zero-sum-ness is based on this debatable claim. Most of the literature that I'm familiar with would dispute your position.

Furthermore, you seem to grant the possibility of economic win-win situations but then you claim that this does not alter the overall economic win-lose situation. At any given level of analysis, though, the possibility of economic win-win situations seems to be granted in your view. So what level of analysis is necessary in order to arrive at a win-lose only economic perspective? To me, this appears highly dubious because even if you take a long-term, global perspective, it is the case that we are all better off, collectively and individually, now than one hundred years ago, or one thousand years ago. Benefits that would have been unthinkable then are now common. How does this fit into a world view that demands winners and losers? Even the so-called "losers" in today's world are much better off than they would have been one hundred years ago so this actually suggests the opposite of what you are claiming for the long-term.

As a related aside, I'd just like to point out that your claim to a need for currency to make sense of my example of trading aluminum for steel is not valid. Barter or currency are both means for the exchange of goods. The former requires an agreement on the quantity of one item that is equivalent to a quantity of another (let's say two pounds of steel equals one pound of aluminum). The latter refers both items to a universally agreed upon reference medium of exchange (money in English) for the purposes of exchange (let's say one pound of steel is worth $1 and one pound of aluminum is worth $2). I left this deliberately vague in my example because the means of exchange does not have any bearing on the inherent mutual benefit of the exchange. It is the mutual benefit derived from the exchange of specialized production that is a cornerstone of current economic activity.

Historiography as Science?
History is not repeatable. That alone is sufficient reason to deny the possibility of its predictive value from a scientific stand point. The kind of claim you've made for the objective of the study of history might have appealed to some social scientists of the fifties and sixties but there are few who would make such grandiose claims today (with the possible exception of when engaging in the process of trying to get a juicy research grant).

History can tell us a lot about ourselves, where we've been and what we've done. It isn't that useful for telling us where we're going. At most we can study history for the sake of knowing what has been done and how it worked out and use that knowledge of history to inform our choices in a future course of action.

Testability of Frontier Theory -- Of Mice and Men
The manner in which you have presented Frontier Theory does not suggest any testability whatsoever. No social theory is "testable" in the manner of a physics theory. Nietzsche might disagree with this on the basis of the example of the failed implementation of communism. But this too was a historically specific event. It neither proves that communism is unworkable in other circumstances nor does it prove the inherent superiority of capitalism (contrary to what some folks have since suggested).

Reference to historically specific events cannot prove anything. At best, historical reference can demonstrate the invalidity of a theoretical position in a given historical context. Others have already attempted to do so in this thread. And, you'll notice, this has not shaken your claims about the validity of frontier theory as you describe it.

Reference to quasi-social experiments with rats and mice, likewise, do not prove anything. At best such experiments are a curiosity which, with sufficient rhetorical skill, can be presented as an analogy for human behavior -- which they are not. I believe you admit that these experiments do not have wide acceptance as an analogy so the onus is on you to convince me of the correctness of your position, not vice versa.

Well, that's about it... for now.

-- posted by RalphZ

Top 15. Aug 17, 1999 4:50 PM

» LarryW_4 - Some Points of Possible Agreement

We may be able to agree on at least a few points:

Death is an option. Packing up and moving to Mars is not the only way.

Humans occupied the Americas long before Europeans arrived.

The history of European colonization informs us of the probable outcome when a less technologically advanced civilization comes into contact with a more advanced one.

China was a frontier for Japan. With its access to the critical resources it found there threatened by American intervention, Japan went to war.

Many practical points laid down by Karl Marx have been accepted by modern industrialized states. (If I'm not mistaken, centralized banking is one of those.)

Capitalism has changed dramatically in the past 100 years, and it is under increasing pressure to change in the direction of a more socialist model.

A majority of people agree on the need for state intervention in society and the economy.

Economic zero-sum-ness (I like that term) is about winners and losers.

The idea of finite natural resources is a debatable issue. (You can tell, because people debate it all the time.)

We can use knowledge gained from the study of history to inform our choices about the future.

The burden is on me to convince you of the correctness of my position.

Feel free to amend or amplify this list as you see fit. We can use it as a starting point for future discourse.

-- posted by LarryW_4

Top 16. Dec 11, 2001 8:29 AM

» jell8811 - Re: Some Points of Possible Agreement

YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT DEATH IS AN OPTION!!

-- posted by jell8811