Non-Zero Sum Economics - Rewarding CollaborationAltruistic Economics allows accurate recording of
win-win (or lose-lose) interactions,
since it does not enforce zero-sum interaction.
Its multi-dimensional pricing system is a straightforward way to
get away from Win-Lose interactions,
by allowing all parties to a transaction to independently record their feelings about what goes on:
For example, consider the following set of transactions between Aysha, Birbal & Chris:
| Description | Aysha | Birbal | Chris | A+B+C |
| A and B have an enjoyable game of badminton | win-win | +1h | +2h | | +3h |
| B gives C a lift in to work | lose-win | | -1/2 | +1h | +1/2h |
| C spends a frustrating 2 hours helping B fail to fix his Computer | lose-lose | | -2h | -2h | -4h |
| C enjoys looking after A's daughter for 2 hours | win-win | +2h | | +1h | +3h |
| A fixes B's Computer in 1/2 hour | lose-win | -1/2h | +6h | | +51/2h |
| B lends C a video | neutral-win | | 0 | +2h | +2h |
| Net Balances after these transactions: | A: +21/2h | B: +51/2h | C: +2h |
Total Balances, A+B+C: | +10h > 0 |
Aysha, Birbal & Chris self-report their feelings about the transactions.
How they feel is more important than what goes on. For example:
- 1. A & B
spend the same amount of time playing badminton, but B feels he enjoyed it more.
- 2. B has negligible inconvenience from lending C a video, so he scores it as zero.
C enjoyed it, so he scores it as a positive. So this transaction is just a straight 'Win'.
- 3. C looks after A's daughter, so in normal economics, he is judged as a 'loser'
(and compensated with money for being so).
However, since he enjoys doing this, he scores it as a positive. Why not?
Human interaction is not a zero-sum game, and to rid ourselves of a short-sighted,
money-obsessed view of what constitutes 'profitable' activity.
We need an alternative system of economics that reflects this!
|