Serious Is money a 0 sum game

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

I think it's obvious that it is a 0 sum game. You want money? Someone else has to pay you.
The shit about wealth being "created by enterprise" also seems extremely bullshit. They don't generate money, they take money form customers and pay for materials and take the rest as profit. They've not increased money, they just convinced the customer to overpay.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

I think it's obvious that it is a 0 sum game. You want money? Someone else has to pay you.
The shit about wealth being "created by enterprise" also seems extremely bullshit. They don't generate money, they take money form customers and pay for materials and take the rest as profit. They've not increased money, they just convinced the customer to overpay.

The money the customer pays allows the person receiving the money to pay for expenses and goods. This consumer spending drives the consumer economy. With more consumer spending people find it worthwhile to open businesses to meet the demand from consumers. The cycle repeats until something messes it up.

GDP is gross domestic output and is largely determined by the growth of industries and products being made. More consumer demand equals more products being made equals a growing economy all else equal.

 

[epillepsy]

There's a certain amount of money, even accounting for inflation and deflation, and when one person makes money, another gains money. It's a zero-sum game.

 

[PPEcel]

You have a pretty poor understanding of economics.

 

[Deleted member 23712]

I think it's obvious that it is a 0 sum game. You want money? Someone else has to pay you.
The shit about wealth being "created by enterprise" also seems extremely bullshit. They don't generate money, they take money form customers and pay for materials and take the rest as profit. They've not increased money, they just convinced the customer to overpay.

Toilets are a 0 sum game

 

[Mainländer]

Money was originally supposed just to make trades of goods and services easier. But nowadays, with fiat currency, it doesn't work like that anymore.

 

[based_meme]

Money has no intrinsic value. It only has the value assigned to it by the issuer of the promisary note and the value that we all agree that it has. We use money for things that have an agreed-upon fixed value, but also use it for things that we assign personal value.

Value is something that you can add and create without needing to add more money. Suppose chairs don't exist. I can buy a saw that has a certain market value, cut some wood, then use it to create the first chair. I've now added a lot value in the market. I can then put a price on that chair and let the market decide what the value settles on chairs, once I make enough of them.

But if everybody does what I did with the chair and adds value by creating more things and introducing them into the market, there's going to be a shortage of money to go around to trade for all of the excess added value, and so you have to add more money (which is supposed to represent real value anyway).

So no, money is not a zero-sum game.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

But if everybody does what I did with the chair and adds value by creating more things and introducing them into the market, there's going to be a shortage of money to go around to trade for all of the excess added value, and so you have to add more money (which is supposed to represent real value anyway).

I didn't get this part ngl
What do you mean by the underlined?

How is more money added if there is a shortage of money to go around to trade for all of the excess added value? Don't companies that can't sell things go out of business and usually have liquidation/going out of business sales where they mark off their stock at cheaper prices to get rid of as much of the excess products as possible?
After that there is less business and with everything else constant, less money being exchanged. How would money be added at the macroeconomic scale and why would it be added?