Who would you join?

[Phil_de_geezer]

The way I see it, you are directly rewarded for your skill, intelligence, and hard work in a free, capitalistic society

Should intelligence be rewarded? Is intelligence genetic or can one strive to improve it? Why should someone be rewarded or punished for something they are born with and therefore have no control over? If you are born with a lower than average intelligence then you are restricted to manual jobs which invariably pay badly in a capitalist society.

Even if you are fortunate to be blessed with a high intelligence, if you are born into a poor family, what opportunities does capitalism provide? I am extremely grateful that my country is currently controlled by a socialist party and so i will be able to attend university. If the Government did not pay for my education then there is no way i could possibly afford to go to university, which would restrict my prospects unfairly.

I agree that hard work should be rewarded. But in a capitalist society is hard work rewarded? How much work do the fat cats do in return for their six-figure pay packets? How important is their work to society? Currently nurses get paid about £16k - 18k a year for working very hard. Company directors get paid loads for sitting on their backsides in their plush offices. How does that reward hard work?

I'm so glad i don't have to put up with those damned republicans in America!

Anyway, i'm sure my words have been said a thousand times before on this forum but i don't care.

[Velociryx]

Had to chime in again in support of Big Daddy Morgan.

It is untrue that the bulk of the Morganite population would be living in poverty. If that were the case, then the USA (a country whose economy is largely built around the same ideas as Morgan's faction) would see the majority of its citizens living in poverty. In fact, there are more millionaires here than anyplace else on the planet, and the number grows daily.

There are opportunities here....doesn't matter how poor your family is....if you have the will and the desire to improve yourself, there are ways to do it.

Specifically, you finance your future, banking on...betting on yourself and your ability to improve.

As someone who came from a family of modest means and slowly, quietly built myself up to where I am now (not rich by any means, but quite comfortable, and able to do as I please), I know this to be true.

There was no money for college (my family simply lacked the means to do it), but that didn't stop me from attending. I got loans, grants, worked a couple of jobs and got it done.

Hard work is rewarded.

Persistence is rewarded.

Intelligence is rewarded.

Yes, it is true that we are all born with skills and abilities, and those skills and abilities are not equal. But I would ask the question Where is it written that we MUST BE equal? If all people were equal in all ways, then we would be essentially the same, and without any significant diversity, our world would be a drab place indeed.

If we ensure that everyone has exactly the same opportunities, then we do two things.

First and most importantly, we remove any and all incentive to TRY....why? Because in such a society, we KNOW that we don't have to try. There's no need to work hard....why should we? Those who work hard, toiling sixteen hours a day wind up with the same stuff as those who sleep till noon and watch tv....so why bother? That's a fact of human nature. Are there exceptions? Certainly....but they are just that. Exceptions. (and speaking for myself, I can tell you that in such a society, I would do as little as I could get away with....no point in doing more).

Second, because it reduces that society to the lowest common denominator. It punishes those with ability by hobbling them. It punishes those with ambition by not letting them flourish.

Not everybody WANTS to be a leader. I don't. I simply want to be able to be able to express my talents (both those I was born with, and those I took the time and effort to hone), and to be rewarded for doing so.

Putting all that in game terms, I think I would be quite comfortable in either Dee's group or Lal's, but Morgan speaks to me. Sure, in part because of the creature comforts, but in part because of my background. I feel as though I'm on the same page with Morgan (and to a lesser extent, with Dee). --this tells me that I'd be constantly trying to get Morgan to run Green/Wealth...lol

Maximum choice, and reward for ability, ambition, and hard work.

Morgan's group allows that.

-=Vel=-

[Maniac]

I hate it these "What's your favourite faction?" threads with the following political discussions always come when I have exams! Nevertheless, I can't resist to answer.

Originally posted by Velociryx There are opportunities here....doesn't matter how poor your family is....if you have the will and the desire to improve yourself, there are ways to do it.

"If you just want to succeed, you always will, no matter the odds against you, no matter how poor your family is." This is IMHO a rather simplistic argument many wild-free-marketeers use. But things aren't that black and white you know.

Take two children with exactly the same talents and exactly the same will to work. But one of them is born in a very poor family which can hardly pay for school books and decent food. The other one is born in a rich family which can provide the kid with everything it needs. Do you seriously believe they will both be able to reach the same things in life??

No, they won't. The potentials of the poor kid, just as every other poor but talented kid, won't be exploited to full advantage in an ultraliberal free market system. Speaking in political terms, this is a serious loss of human resources. So it is in fact economically sound to give everyone equal opportunities for eg education, as European socialism does. An equal or assured wage of course wouldn't be economically sound, I agree.

M@ni@c

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by Ade
First:
- Peacekeepers. I'm a pacifist and liberalist, and the Peacekeepers also value arts and culture. Really the only truly right choice for me.

I'm on the same page with Ade on this one, which is why I selected the Peacekeepers for this poll. They also strike me as the most versitile, being able to boost production for war or allocate resources for peacetime infrastructure, as needed, with a high emphasis on facilities and standard of life for its citizens. The first half of Micheal Ely's "Centauri Dawn" I thought illustrated this well. Adherrance to the U.N. Charter isn't as rigid or unyielding a policy as the other factional ideologies. My sentiment on this is similar to Hydro, however I'd include the Gaians in the bargain. It's pretty obvious in-game they're meant to the the enlightened saviors of Chiron, and while they're more pacifist, tolerant, and less severe than most, Gainas still hold unreasonable ecological paradaigms for the rest of the factions to follow, and bear a grudge if they don't imitate their xenofungal/mind worm cohabitation. "All I'm asking for is a little less fungus hugging" is a Morgan maxim from "Dragon Sun."

The Hive however, is probably the worst kind of society to live in. You can visit rural China and witness the marks of a long-standing planned economy and police state, with their ugly, teeming tenemant buildings and nationalized industries. The Hive however, tops that by living entirely in underground bunkers, its citizens slaving underground at farms and mines under the arm of Thought Guard overseers, drones frequently nerve stapled, freedoms nearly nonexistant. Yang has the largest amount of citizens who were "absorbed" into Hive structure against their will; onboard the Unity when all the remaining cryopods were opening and Yang had declared martial law, he impressed a great deal of the freshly awakened crew into his service. Very Orwellian; life in the Hive is only a half-way decent proposition if you're in one of Yang's inner circles of military, science, or economy, and even then you have to be wary of making any involuntary seditious remarks or actions. Paranoid despots with absolute power and who peddle visions of utopia give me the chills. For the "average" person, life as a Morganite or Peacekeeper is infinitely more fruitful.

[LodeRunner]

Phil, I believe that intelligence is a combination of genetics and how you are raised (especially from ages 1-5). As to whether or intelligence should be rewarded, of course it should. Would you rather non-intelligence be rewarded? I think that if someone is intelligent, they will overcome adversity and will eventually flourish, if they have the desire to. My parents were never able to pay anything for my college education, but I was still able to go. I worked part-time and took out student loans. I know that if I chose not to go to school, I certainly wouldn't want to pay for someone else going (through higher taxes). And since I wanted to go, I'm satisfied that someone else (who never went) didn't have to pay for me.

As far as the "fat cats" you refer to, I don't think that they were born into that position. I know that the former chairman of the board of my company started off as a lowly production worker, and through hard work and skill, raised himself up to that position. I know that my boss (the smartest person I've met) started off similarly, and now is a director. I could not imagine where this company would be without his intelligence and technical knowledge.

Vel, I couldn't have said any better myself... As always, you express yourself clearly and get your points across very well (something I'm not very good at).

M@ni@c, your hypothetical situation is, well, hypothetical. It's hard to imagine two people with such differing backgrounds to have the same motivations. And even if it could happen, I could seriously see how they would be able to reach the same things in life. That's because I think I people become more successfull and reach more of their goals, they get content. I think the poorer person would certainly have to do more work over his/her lifespan to reach the same "level" as the rich person. But, then again, I think the poor person would be more motivated to get out of the poor situation.

[Mr. President]

Interesting point you make about non-intelligence being rewarded. I won't open that can of worms here (I've already seen ugly arguments in nominal games forums about current events, politics, and even eugenics) but I would like to point out that Aristotle's idea of a eudaimonic society is very different than the social engineering choice presented in the game. In his writings, he envisions a society where the most able rule absolutely, and where people are sorted into careers ranging from government to slave labor by aptitude, depending on which level "fulfills their potential".

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Marid Audran
The Hive however, is probably the worst kind of society to live in. You can visit rural China and witness the marks of a long-standing planned economy and police state, with their ugly, teeming tenemant buildings and nationalized industries. The Hive however, tops that by living entirely in underground bunkers, its citizens slaving underground at farms and mines under the arm of Thought Guard overseers, drones frequently nerve stapled, freedoms nearly nonexistant. Yang has the largest amount of citizens who were "absorbed" into Hive structure against their will; onboard the Unity when all the remaining cryopods were opening and Yang had declared martial law, he impressed a great deal of the freshly awakened crew into his service. Very Orwellian; life in the Hive is only a half-way decent proposition if you're in one of Yang's inner circles of military, science, or economy, and even then you have to be wary of making any involuntary seditious remarks or actions. Paranoid despots with absolute power and who peddle visions of utopia give me the chills. For the "average" person, life as a Morganite or Peacekeeper is infinitely more fruitful.

OK. Now I'm disillusioned. First I learn that Santiago is more brutal than I gave her credit for. And now Yang. I never thought them to be THAT oppressive. Strengthening ourselves, and establishing a communal utopia are noble goals, but not when people have to bleed over it.

I guess I can't possibly agree with any ideology when taken to the extremes they are taken to.

I guess this thread was exactly what I needed to get my head out of the clouds, and back to thinking rationally. I do agree with Yang's communal utopia, but I don't agree with the commonplace nerve stapling. I agree with the Spartans when they say that strength is an important thing to have. I don't agree when they say that the weak deserve to perish. I agree with Zak that we must strive to increase our knowledge. However not at the expense of ethics (which Zak has trouble getting a grasp of). I guess that leaves me disagreeing with Dee the least. But I still think she places the rapidly awakening Planetmind at higher priority to human survival. But since she runs things democratically, I could perhaps try to persuade her to offer a compromise between the efficient green economic structure, and powerhouse nationalised industry of planned economic structure. At least so the populations are at a decent level, and employment is created.

Commissioner Lal is hell-bent on reuniting everyone and offering compromises with the many ideologies (except of course for Yang, since police state is seen as nothing more than a brutal dictatorship and slap in the face to those who regard life by Lal). Though there may be an inefficient bureaucracy being run by Lal and his coucil, it still beats being nerve-stapled by Yang, beaten to death for being 'weak' by Santiago, experimented on by Zak's scientists, exploited by Morgan and the other fat-cats amongst his board of directors, and butchered in the name of 'faith' by Miriam. So when I am aboard the Unity and I'm heading to either Lal's, or Dierdre's colony pod. Purely because those two are the most willing to make compromises. For Yang, Santiago and the others, on the other hand, it is all in black and white.

[Frankychan]

Well...I would like to begin by saying welcome to all those new ppl that have posted in the Apolyton forums...Neutrino, LodeRunner, etc.,

But for Marid, here's something to think about...

Yang built his city's undeground to better protect his citizen's from the mindworm attacks. Even though you you make valid remarks about "Yang's Inner Circle", the whole purpose of building cities underground is to help protect his peoples vulnerabilty against the mindworm menace.

[Maniac]

M@ni@c, your hypothetical situation is, well, hypothetical. It's hard to imagine two people with such differing backgrounds to have the same motivations.

Well no indeed. Realizing they haven’t got many opportunities in life, they would lower their expectations.

And even if it could happen, I could seriously see how they would be able to reach the same things in life.

The most important word is “would be able”. It is remotely possible they will reach the same goals, but not very likely. So again I say you’re wasting a lot of human potential here. Sure, you and Velociryx were able to reach a decent living standard, but for each one of you, there’s another one, or ten, that couldn’t. And I can’t imagine that’s just because they are all too lazy or unmotivated to work or something like that - another argument often used by ultraliberals.

It is untrue that the bulk of the Morganite population would be living in poverty. If that were the case, then the USA (a country whose economy is largely built around the same ideas as Morgan's faction) would see the majority of its citizens living in poverty. In fact, there are more millionaires here than anyplace else on the planet, and the number grows daily.

I’d like to comment on that. I just read in the paper today that in the United States one percent of the population owns 34% of the wealth. That’s the highest percentage of all industrialized countries. So yes, many US citizens live in relative poverty. And the fact that the number of millionaires is increasing in the USA has as a consequence that other people in the USA or the rest of the planet have less money. The gap between the rich and the poor is still increasing, which again means more and more potential is being wasted.

I know that if I chose not to go to school, I certainly wouldn't want to pay for someone else going (through higher taxes). And since I wanted to go, I'm satisfied that someone else (who never went) didn't have to pay for me.

You’re attacking the basics of human civilization here. Sure you pay for things that you don’t do, just like the other one pays for stuff he doesn’t do and you do. Without that, there wouldn’t be a society and you would still be living in a cave, fearful that your stronger neighbour smashes your head and comes stealing your daughter.

[Velociryx]

IMO, the single biggest factor that keeps people from achieving their goals is fear (fear of failure, fear of the unknown....all boils down to the same root element....fear).

It's not lack of information. Public libraries are full of FREE books that contain all the information (which, by reading them, can be turned from information into knowledge) you could ever want or need to succeed in this country. If you're really starting off at a disadvantage (say, you can't read, for example), most towns and cities of decent size offer free or extremely inexpensive classes to remedy that.

The information is out there, freely available to any who care to take the time to go after it. There are low cost alternatives to classic education schemes....a staggering array of grants and loans available, and of course, there's always work to be found. Maybe not glamorous work, but work. Having stocked toystores at three in the morning and pulled graveyard shifts working in truck stops while going to school, I know all about having to do the crap jobs while getting your eductation, BUT....once you've got it, you're rolling. You gain momentum, and from there, its a whole lot easier to do more.

The other key area we disagree on is that "if more millionaires are made in the USA, that means less money for everybody else." This, and the fact that 1% of the population here controlls 34% of the wealth in the nation would be true indicators that the rest of the world is in fear of living in poverty (or, relative poverty as you mentioned), but that's not how the economy works. The economy is not a sum-zero game. If I make more money, that doesn't mean you make less. The economic pie is not carved up that way. Wealth is CREATED, not shuffled around from person to person (well, actually it's a bit of both, but economic growth is about increasing the SIZE of the economic pie....of course there are daily and monthly living expenses that move actual incomes from one hand to another, but that's still not a sum-zero game...the money changing hands is merely the mechanism that makes the economy run...greese for the wheel, as it were).

The truth is, that while the wealthiest 1% may control 34% of the wealth of the nation, this is mostly paper wealth (stock certificates indicating control of a company). Thus, the health of the company in question is tied directly to the wealthy guy's ability to stay...well, wealthy. Given that those companies employee people who are LESS wealthy, and rely on other "less wealthy" people, working in other companies for their paycheck to buy product x (whatever gadget or gizmo it is that the owner of the company cranks out), it is in that person's best interest--and in the interest of his long term continued ability to BE wealthy-- to ensure that there's a market for the product his company makes. If there's insufficient money IN the economy, flowing down to the workers (salaries), then no one will have enough cash to buy product x and the wealthy man's company will go broke (ie - he will lose wealth as the value of his stock declines and/or the company in question goes broke).

This is an extremely simplified version of what actually goes on, but illustrative enough to at least be indicative that the wealthy guy is not just sucking the life blood out of his employees. If he did that, he would very quickly lose his wealth altogether.

-=Vel=-

[Tactical Marine]

I personaly would join with the Morganites.

[Maniac]

Because one knows all about quantum physics doesn't mean one have a university degree in quantum physics. Without that (s)he won't be hired anywhere.

We are kind of stuck in our current dispute. You say, if they want to work for it, they will reach their goals. I say, even if they work for it, the odds are sometimes that bad a too big percentage won't reach their goals. With you personal anecdote, you are repeating the essence of your first post, and with what I could say now I'll also just repeat myself. No matter who might be "right", discussing this point any further hasn't got any use. Out of your personal experience you will continue to believe your view. In my personal surroundings I know people who will indeed succeed through hard working the way you describe. On the other side I know talented people who are too discouraged to succeed or could have ended higher if they started better. Hence my view.

I'll try reasoning from another angle. If I have a good grasp of your and LodeRunner's reasoning, you are saying that it isn't needed for the government to provide equal opportunities because, if people are willing to work for it, they will reach their goals. Well, though some people are very talented in some fields, let's again say quantum physics, they are not prepared to stock toy stores in the middle of the night. So what? Does that mean their talents should be wasted to society? From a personal point of view you could indeed say that those people don't deserve to end high and that you aren't willing to pay taxes for his/her education. I completely agree with such a view. But we're discussing government policies here. My or your personal opinions about such individuals are irrelevant on that level. Instead, one should consider what the best economic policy is. And the most efficient economic policy, resulting in the highest amount of educated people, is providing equal opportunities, making things easier for people to succeed. Of course, if one is absolutely unwilling to work, that person will still fail, but there will be more "moderate" people succeeding.


Wealth is created. Money isn’t. Barring (il)legal printing, there is a fixed amount of money in circulation. Though the size of the pie (the wealth) will increase, it will still be represented by the same eg 100 (more valuable) euros. So when I take 10 euros from you, you will have ten euros less. It is true however that - in a good running economy – you will be able to buy more or better stuff with that same 10 euros. For example, with the same 15000 euros I will either be able to buy a better computer than 5 years ago, or ten Pentium I computers made 5 years ago. Economy is a sum-zero game. It’s just that the size that each number presents changes. So I stick to my point the majority of the population is getting relatively poorer (owning a smaller percentage of the money). Absolutely speaking (in terms of wealth – living standard) most people are indeed getting richer – though there still is a small percentage (5%?) that is also getting poorer in absolute terms. But that can’t be avoided I guess.

Regarding your last paragraph, I couldn’t have said it better. That’s exactly why it is bad that the relative gap between poor and rich is getting bigger. If this continues for too long, a bigger and bigger percentage of the world’s population will indeed be unable to buy the products produced by the wealthy guy. The bourgeoisie in the nineteenth century at first didn’t seem to realize it was in their best interest that people had enough money to buy their products. As a result there was great poverty which led to the rise of socialism. Now the same is happening IMO. It’s just that the third world is now the victim instead of the industrialized countries’ citizens.

[Velociryx]

I totally agree that our perceptions about stuff like this are shaded by our own personal experience, and yet....I have not found a single instance where I could not look at where a person is in his/her life, and discern the root causes of that.

It's true that a person who has great mastery in Quantum Physics but lacks the degree in the same won't be hired by anyone, as he lacks the paper that "proves" his competence in the field. But is it not also true that if the hypothetical person mentioned above has no desire to get his hands dirty and work a few crap jobs in order to finance his education to GET that paper....could it not be said then that he didn't regard his goal of becoming a Quantum Physicist as being important enough to follow through? Sure, he did all the reading to gain the knowledge needed, but that's not all that is required of him. If he chooses not to do that which is necessary to complete the process....well...he chooses not to. No one MADE him not want to take those "menial labor" type jobs to finance his education. He simply elected not to. That's cool, but that's also his choice. And, there are other choices.

Our quantum physics whiz kid, if he's really THAT good, can surely get the attention of a company that needs that skill set (especially since there aren't many of those folks in the country and his knowledge is in demand, degree or no)....so he could write letters and gain internships working for a company gratis--or for little money--and they company would pick up the tab for his education. Happens all the time in this country.

Or, he could get government grants and low interest loans (there already ARE, currently, today, TONS of government programs to help those who are interested in helping themselves).

The crux of my argument is that ability alone is not enough. If our quantum physics guy has the ability...the talent, but is sitting on his duff waiting for someone to come HAND the degree to him cos he's unwilling to work for it...then no! I do not feel any sympathy for him! He's got the ability but lacks the ambition to do anything with it, and those chips can and should fall where they may. If he considers it beneath him to take a crap job to finance his future....and if he also is unwilling to go looking for other alternatives, then I for one, am not overly inclined to do anything whatsoever to help him out, no matter what his talents.

WRT money....money IS created....all the time. In fact, it's one of the primary reasons banks exist...to create new money for the economy.

When you deposit your check in the bank, it doesn't just sit there...the banks takes your money and combines it with the paychecks that other folks have just deposited, and loans it out...and yet, you can go get "your money" any time you want....now you've got it, and some other company's got it....but that would be patently impossible if the money supply was static....and proof positive that new money is created by banks on a constant basis, and is, in fact, in an almost constant state of flux (new loans being made all the time, existing loans being paid off as wealth created BY those new loans brings in money).

The ONLY time it's a sum zero game is in cases like when you write a check for rent, and give it to your landlord....that tiny snapshot IS a sum zero equation....you have less money, your landlord has more...but that is a microcosm of the economy as a whole....that singular transaction does not reflect the functioning of the economy itself.

Here's another way of looking at it. Each year, wherever you work, it's almost a given that everybody in the company gets a cost of living raise of a few percent (3-5% or something in that range is the average). If the economy truly was a sum zero equation, this event would be an impossibility. Everybody CAN'T get more money in a sum zero game....what would have to happen is that half the employees would have to take a 3-5% paycut in order to finance the 3-5% gains in salary that the other half of the company gets....but that's not what happens. Everybody gets more.

Or, if you get a promotion and a big pay raise to go with it, your coworkers don't suddenly get a paycut to pay for your raise....you simply get more money in your check. It (the ability to pay for your raise) comes from wealth creation inherent in the successful operation of the business.

Henry Ford was regarded as a lunatic when he first opened his assembly line auto factory and offered to pay his employees an unheard of $5 a day (iirc). That was a HUGE salary back then....everybody thought it was insane.

What they didn't realize is that Ford understood that if he wanted to build a market for his cars, he would need to make sure people had enough money to buy them. So...he paid his employees really well, which put pressure on the automakers in general to follow suit (after all, with the money that Ford was paying, he could get the cream of the crop, where workers were concerned...if the competition didn't want to lose their best workers, they had no choice but to follow his lead). So....the entire auto industry started seeing better pay, and more people were able to afford the cars coming off the assembly line.

Everybody had more....not less.

That general theory is alive and well today in more and more places, all over the world. China, recent market experimenters themselves, has already seen impressive gains, and they've only just begun. The standard of living is rising, and it's rising for everybody who is willing to play the game.

If you're not willing to play the game, you don't see any benefits from the game....if you are (again, going back to personal choice and the willingness to set aside doubt and fear and work for it)....the gains are there for the taking.

-=Vel=-
(just my two cents on a sleepy Sunday morning...and by the way, I'm enjoying the conversation!)

[Capt Dizle]

There is so much wealth i the United States!

Most folks do not understand that we have a system that allows the uber-rich to live with out any fear of social unrest and turmoil.

Say Vel, for example, feels he has struggled and reached a certain plateau. Comfortable. Started with little, applied himself and became comfortable. Hard work and a little American opportunity. Wonderful.

But lets take a look at equitable distribution. The amount of money in our system is obscene. If suddenly distributed, even, including income producing assets, someone like Vel would see he had been living as a pauper relative to the new standard.


The capitalist/democratic system in America works as a stable platform from which to distribute to the masses sufficient wealth to placate them. To prevent riots. And to stimulate inititive.

But most of the wealth is concentrated in a very tiny percentage of the population, most of which inherited it as opposed to notable individuals like Bill Gates who stole his.

[Maniac]

In my previous post 15000 euros should've been 1500 euros...

Or, he could get government grants and low interest loans (there already ARE, currently, today, TONS of government programs to help those who are interested in helping themselves).

Well let's hope so. I only hear the system for helping people in a mess sucks in the USA compared to most North and West Europe. I'm just interested in making sure more people get educated to their full potential. Whether this can be best done by letting people do much work themselves, or by helping them a lot by low interest loans and government grants we will never know exactly. I can only say my region Flanders apparently contains among the highest percentage of schooled people in the world, so I would just assume our system of government support is better than the American system. Facts are sacred, opinion is free.

The amoral Macchiavellian pragmaticist in me doesn't care a damn about sympathy and whether or not that potential quantum physicist is willing to work on totally different jobs to reach his goal. He's just interested in making sure that lazy guy becomes that physicist to strengthen the country's economy. Preferably that would be without giving him any government money, but if that isn't possible... As long as we don't agree on that point, we will also never agree on the point of government support.

On the other issue, I won't have (just about 30 hours a year) economy lessons until next year at university, but I'd like to understand things now.

First, if all wages rise, isn't that just because there is inflation, and because there is more physical (and electronical) money printed and brought into circulation the last decades? Although, as you and I say, money is in constant flux and used for creating economic growth and wealth, and one euro becomes worth more after some time, isn't it after all those transactions, the same 100 euros, just in different hands?

Second, from what you say about banks, I would continue to say money isn't created. As far as I know, the banks don't have printing presses creating money. They still get their cash from people who put their wages on their bank account. They "lend" that money to invest it in stocks etcetera. That stock rises in value, which means they will make profit when they sell it. Their money supply increases. But that still doesn't mean money being created; that doesn't mean the total amount of cash in the system is increased. That just means someone else has paid/lost cash to own that stock.

Third, you agree that a simple transaction between the landlord and the people living in the appartment is a zero-sum game. But doesn't the entire complex economy consist out of such simple zero-sum games? Again, that money is used to increase production, science, wealth, services etcetera, but as I can see it's still the same amount of money.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get how what you say negates the idea of a zero-sum game. It just proves to me that a fix amount of money is used to increase wealth and living standard in the capitalist system. Perhaps I'm stupid or so, perhaps I'm right but don't express it well. But I hope you can enlighten me somehow...

Edited: grammatical mistakes