Collaboration does not harm those not involved

If two people, other than me, collaborate their assets become more valuable relative to mine... But equally assets of that type become cheaper for me to purchase.

Let's imagine I own an asset of type A and desire an asset of type B. How does the collaboration of others (in generating assets of both types) affect my position? Assets of both types become less valuable and so overall my position is unaffected... It is only if I have no desire to buy anything that my wealth would be diminished. But is it ever possible to say that a person has no material desires? The collaboration of others is not bad for this person because the cost to replace the assets (which have fallen in value) also, has fallen in value. It would only be to their detriment if they were in possession of assets of greater value than they have a need for...

To someone who considers themselves to be in material poverty, the collaboration of others is always helpful because assets will fall in value and become easier to acquire.

So, we accept as obvious that collaboration is preferable for those who participate in it, and find that the outcome for those who are not involved is neutral at worst. It benefits those who seek assets and harms those who consider themselves to have an excess of assets.

Collaboration increases the rate at which wealth may be generated and (this behaviour) is not a zero-sum game.

Sat 10th January 2009