> if you like small startups you should like anti trust laws
Small start-ups which cannot grow are not start-ups, they’re small businesses. This article is, if genuine, an anti-growth pitch. It ensconces the status quo.
Anti-growth doesn't mean zero growth. I meant it more in the sense of being against unbridled technological innovation, which is a lot different than growth in any possible way.
For example, a society could grow in other ways such as being restructured or even using less.
> a society could grow in other ways such as being restructured or even using less
This is not anti-growth, it’s different growth. We generate more GDP per unit of physical resources or energy than before. That is good and still growth.
That depends on how you measure growth. If you measure it as total wealth then you are right but if you measure it as wealth per capita then you can grow for a lot longer before you hit a wall if you keep the population under control.
> If aggregate growth is zero, the system is zero sum.
No, it isn't.
> Per capita doesn’t matter.
Of course it does. If all of the actors in the system perceive themselves to be better off then it doesn't matter is there is no actual underlying growth. This can happen, for example, through trade. If I have something you want and you have something I want we can create wealth literally out of nothing simply by exchanging those two things.
Or, if you have something I want, and you die and I inherit that thing, then I am better off than I was even though there has been no actual underlying growth.
Only if you use a vacuous definition of "growth" that fails to distinguish between an actual change in the underlying physical situation and a change in people's perceptions.
> if you use a vacuous definition of "growth" that fails to distinguish between an actual change in the underlying physical situation and a change in people's perceptions
No, this is fundamental game theory. Independent of what you’re measuring, if it isn’t growing, the game is zero sum. By definition. Of course if something else is growing that game may not be zero sum.
You are confusing the map with the territory. Mathematical models are only useful insofar as they correspond with reality. Go back to your original claim:
> Zero growth means zero-sim [sic] games. Pre-modernity. Sucks to be poor if you’re born into that world.
China is the second-largest economy in the world, and the fastest growing. Liechtenstein's economy and its growth rate are a tiny fraction of China's. But if you had a choice between being an average resident of China or an average resident of Liechtenstein you'd be a fool to choose the former no matter what game theory tells you.
Small start-ups which cannot grow are not start-ups, they’re small businesses. This article is, if genuine, an anti-growth pitch. It ensconces the status quo.