Leftists and the "zero-sum" model

Most of you have heard the phrase "zero-sum game."  That's good, cuz that'll figure prominently below.

I'm always amused when I hear Leftists, like Ocasio-Cortez or Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren, bleat that capitalism is evil, and that the U.S. only became rich and prosperous by stealing [something] from [some oppressed group].

This belief is particularly strong among young college kids who go overseas for the first time.  Understandably, they're thrilled and entranced by how delightful the residents of other countries are.  I felt the same way hitchhiking around Europe at 19.  Very understandable.  "They" seem just like us.  And indeed, the enlightened ones are.  But there's also a big group who aren't.

Where it goes south is that the professors of these young Americans have fed them the "party line"--that everything in life is a zero-sum game.  For those under 30 or so, that means that the ONLY way for one party to "win" something is for another party to lose exactly the same quantity.

The seductive thing about this model is that in some areas it's so obviously true.  For example, when countries are fighting over territory, one nation's gain must be matched by an identical loss on the other side.  Similarly for politics:  If one side gains seats, another side must lose the same number.  Earnest (but naive) young people instantly recognize both these examples, so they logically assume those models are valid for...well, everything.

But as should be obvious to educated people, lots of things don't obey the zero-sum model.

"Wait...It seems so obviously true.  So when doesn't it apply?"

Thanks for asking.  Take the example of an experimenter who develops the 4-stroke piston engine.  He patents it.  Entrepreneur licenses the patent, builds a plant, buys lathes and boring machines and forges and builds engines based on that patent.  Voila!--automobiles.

Has society gained a huge amount?  Sure.  So who lost, to offset this gain, so as to maintain the zero-sum?

Two brothers from Ohio experiment with wings.  They add a 4-stroke engine, and on December 17th, 1903 they make the first documented heavier-than-air flight.  Twenty-four years later a single pilot flies non-stop from New York to Paris.  Twenty years after that, commercial passenger service across the Atlantic.

Did humans gain something of huge usefulness?  Sure.  So who lost?

In 1947 Shockley et al--building on the work of others back to 1920--invented the transistor.  It was clunky but definitely a huge advance.  Eleven years later an entrepreneur morphed that into a silicon-based "integrated circuit"--with conductors engraved by light, containing a whopping five transistors.

Using essentially the same process, your smart-phone now puts a Billion transistors on a single chip.  More elaborate integrated circuits contain 15 Billion transistors on a single chip.

Think that's a huge win for humans?  You bet.  So who lost to make that win possible?

Hopefully you get it.

But the Left either doesn't, or claims not to.  They're stuck in an obsolete paradigm--the zero-sum model.  But as they see it, anyone who doesn't agree with 'em is "a tool of the Establishment" or some such bullshit.

So the next time you hear some socialist asshole spouting that the U.S. is evil, or free markets are a "tool of the capitalist oppressors," ask to borrow his smart-phone.  Then throw it on the pavement as hard as you can, and stomp on it.  When he or she screams at you and asks why you did it, tell 'em you wanted to free them from oppression.

Okay, obviously just kidding.  But gently remind them that "zero-sum" is a model for children.