Economics is Zero-Sum (1)

Economics as a zero-sum is a loose way of conveying the idea that in wealth and trade, one country’s economic gain from one deal is offset by an equivalent loss perhaps absorbed by millions of people in multiple countries.The mechanism which drives my argument today is 1) change in currency value (inflation and deflation), 2) resources and 3) creativity.1) Change in Currency Value: With inflation (or deflation) it’s important to remember that it does not strictly apply only to fiat currencies but to any kind of “currency” that can be used for the exchange of goods. For instance when the Spanish conquistadors brought with them large volumes of Native American gold and silver to Spain, inflation soared.Without further evidence I would like to establish as fact that no matter the differences in definition of what constitutes an economy, that both inflation and deflation are an unavoidable form of indirect transfer of wealth. This holds true whether we’re talking about a “resource based” finite money (i.e. Gold, Silver, Oil, Water, BitCoin) or unlimited fiat currency.With all of the above said, my inflation argument is as follows: Bolstering an economy by either printing fiat currency or by simply finding more gold from the ground necessarily facilitates the indirect, sometimes unpredictable transfer of wealth. This leakage is how developing nations can indirectly gain at the expense of developed nations or vice versa.2) Resources: All major resources are finite (Land, Petrochemicals, Water, Rare Earth Minerals). Now each of these major resources probably deserves to have a separate case put forward but this is a quick and dirty exploratory debate and so I will only bring the example of "Land". As one country steals the land of another, the total sum of land doesn’t change in the equation.This argument, if accepted, highlights the impracticality of bringing all nations to the same high standards (arable land per person and so on). And since I’m arguing that the economy is a zero-sum game, as long as it is not theoretically probable to have every country have similar high standards of wealth, I believe that gives weight to my side of the argument.3) Creativity: Sure, creativity may be one way of creating wealth out of nothing. For instance imagine a country whose economy is entirely based on the export of books. And on paper it would appear that by creating demand for something which didn’t previously exist before (new IP), you’re in fact generating wealth and a win-win for all involved. But what is considered a win-win for the book exporting country, is a loss for businesses in all other countries where opportunity cost considerations results in the reduction in disposable income of consumers in a measurable way.With this point I want to demonstrate that even though it’s true that all arts and entertainment (true for products and services as well) are competing globally; at the same time however, if a certain country’s – say for instance American – intellectual property as a whole starts to outperform in quality, value and sales metrics of any number of countries, then it makes sense that the limited disposable income of people from those 3rd countries would be reduced.In other words, generating wealth by making something up by yourself from scratch still doesn’t make it immune from the fact that you will be creating a trade surplus for yourself, your family, your region, country, or continent. A surplus which isn’t created from an infinite pie but from a finite pie called disposable income, money or resource.---Finally I would like to thank my competitor for taking part in this perhaps hastily put together debate, and for patiently waiting for three days while I get my poop (really debate.org, you're gonna censor s**t?) in order.---Spain Inflation Source:http://www.agbumds.org...http://faculty.history.wisc.edu...