My reaction to Pinsof is something like John Alcorn's as I'm also wondering if there is a bit of bifurcation in our attitudes about when status and power are or are not a zero-sum game. In groups below your Dunbar number they are definitely zero-sum though I think that might be counteracted by the greater importance of maintaining good relations with people who are critical to your survival, at least in intensely tribal societies. I think we see more zero-sum thinking once the focus moves to inter-tribal competition, and especially if we can be induced to transfer our Dunbar-number-sized tribal loyalty to a much broader group. I might be mad if another guy knocks me off the perch as the top hunt organizer and beneficiary in the clan but I'll need to get over it if I want to keep getting fed, however I can rail against Bill Gate's wealth my whole life and it won't affect my personal economic status in the slightest for good or ill.
Re: "perhaps it is not an error to perceive the market as zero-sum."
Unless there is 'perfect competition,' market exchanges can involve bargaining and conflict over the balance of consumer (buyer) surplus and of producer (seller) surplus in the gains from trade. Micro foundations countenance this zero-sum element.
Nonetheless my sense is that people, by and large, recognize gains from trade, as well as some spirit of mutual benefit in commerce.
By contrast, by and large, there is more acrimony in labor markets, and people often take a dim view of "profit" and of billionaires who are not star inventors, athletes, entertainers. People take a dim view of political corruption.
By and large, status and envy are local phenomena. Modern media facilitate invidious comparison with global elites. This has some impact on politics.
I submit that these mixed attitudes about markets (and concern about the impacts of markets on inequality and politics) are longstanding, and that they have not been neglected by scholars.
Market economics is anything but zero-sum. In a perfect form, 2 parties AGREE to a transaction that benefits both. Where it gets tricky is when a third party, i.e., government, sticks its nose into it by way of regulation. Tax the transaction and be done w/it.
Perhaps ironically, maybe if we put Magoon’s panegyric to the Scottish Englightenment into historical context we can get an illustration of what Pinsof is getting at. A timeline of significant relevant events in Scottish history might help:
1695 - The Parliament of Scotland charters a joint-stock company, the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, to establish Scottish international trade. Parliament grants The Company a monopoly of Scottish trade to India, Africa and the Americas and 21 years of exemptions from taxation. One of The Company’s ventures includes seizing territory from Spain to establish a New Caledonia or Britain-in-Panama colony the Darien Gap area of present day Panama. The plan was for the colony, to establish and manage an overland route to connect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. About 1,500 people invest in The Company in an amount totaling about a quarter of liquid Scottish assets at the time.
1698 - A fleet of 13 Company merchant ships, transports around 1,200 men, women and children to Darien. But Paterson’s vision and the financial backing of a wide section of the Scottish nation was not enough to ensure success.
1699 – A second group of colonists arrive 7 months after the first group to find that fever epidemic, food shortages, and attacks by native peoples and foreign powers have resulted in hundreds of deaths. Only three of the 13 company ships that landed at Darien return to Scotland. The Darien venture is ended and many investors are bankrupted. The Company’s debts and the interest on them grow and the Company is unable to wind up its affairs.
1707 – Scotland enters into the Act of Union 1707 uniting the kingdoms of Scotland and England, abolishing the independent Scottish Parliament and placing Scotland under a unified British-Scottish “Parliament of Great Britain.” This is despite widespread opposition among the Scottish people. (https://scottishhistorysociety.com/popular-opposition-to-the-ratification-of-the-treaty-of-anglo-scottish-union-in-1706-7/ ). However, as part of the unity scheme, the new joint government agrees to cover the cost of winding up the Company as well as to impose even higher taxes for Scotland. Popular opposition to the Act of Union continues for decades.
1713 - A motion to dissolve the union between England and Scotaland is introduced in the House of Lords and only defeated by four votes.
1715 - The ‘15 Jacobite, driven in part by opposition to Union, attempts to restore the Stuart Monarchy.
1723 – Adam Smith born. Society of Improvers in the Knowledge of Agriculture in Scotland founded, one of the early forums for Scottish Enlightenment figures to gather.
1743 - Glasgow Political Economy Club founded. Adam Smith would be an early member. Created links between merchants and academics.
1745 - Bonnie Prince Charlie leads the last great uprising to restore Scottish independence but it all ends in defeat at the Battle of Culloden on April 16, 1746.
1776 – Wealth of Nations published.
In this context, Wealth of Nations seems more like a rationalization for Scottish submission to English domination and to whitewash the cynical origins of the Union as bailout for failed investments. Might this be supporting evidence for Pinsof? Especially when he writes:
“The disconnect between audience perceptions and objective reality is why I am more pessimistic than Dan about the world-fixing motivations of intellectuals. The lack of depth to these motivations is precisely what should make us skeptical that they will always lead to good outcomes, or that they are the main causes of moral and material progress throughout history.“
Magoon is talking about the recognition and development of the concept of “commercial society” so it doesn’t really have much to do with whatever the realities of any particular commercial society were. So it doesn’t really seem to tie to Pinsof. It’s more of a historiography point. You might consider whether the Smith’s Scottish Enlightenment criticisms of the English East India Company provide a better illustration of Pinsof’s claim that “societies can get richer without anyone knowing or caring about Adam Smith.”
The British East India Company was founded in 1600 and granted monopolies and tax exemptions just like the Scottish Company. However, as we all know it survived into the 19th century. The Wealth of Nations contains Smith’s harsh criticisms of the East India Company which never really produced much in the way of policy change. One might claim that Smith’s influence had a part in Pitt’s India Act of 1784 which created a Board of Control in London or the Charter Acts of 1793, 1813, 1833, and 1853 that reduced the company’s commercial monopolies. But the fact that it had gotten into financial distress around 1773 and had to borrow money from the government instead of the other way around certainly would seem to be seen as a powerful incentive for Parliament to get involved in monitoring the company’s activities.
One source explains why Smith and his anti-mercantilist philosophy may have had about the degree of influence that Pinsof asserts in his claim”
“The British East India Company (EIC) played a crucial role as a lender to the British government, particularly during the 18th century. By the mid-18th century, public borrowing from the EIC had reached £4.2 million, making it a major source of state financing. The Company was not only a significant contributor to British fiscal stability—providing nearly one-third of customs revenues—but also a key financial partner during wartime. The British state relied on the EIC to fund its regular wars, while the Company depended on state support during liquidity crises, such as the emergency £1.4 million loan from Lord North’s government in 1773. This deep financial interdependence was reinforced by overlapping personnel, shared economic interests, and mutual reliance: the EIC financed the state, and the state rescued the EIC from bankruptcy. As historian Huw Bowen noted, "no minister could ever afford to let the East India Company go to the wall." The EIC’s financial strength was institutionalized through its monopoly, trade profits, and ability to raise capital—making it one of the first firms deemed "too big to fail."”
And this can be seen as part of a longer tradition dating back to, for example, King Louis VII of France granting a charter to the city of Lorris in 1155, establishing its rights and privileges. Such charters were seen as way to promote a rise in market towns, economic growth, urbanization, and increasing importance of trade as a source of revenues. King Louis VII might not have used the phrase “commercial society” but his actions speak of an appreciation of its reality.
Before reading the quoted paragraph which you end, my thought was that one example does not make the case. When I read the quote I was even more surprised to find that he set a rather high bar of never failing. Of course intellectuals don't always get it right. But that doesn't mean they are a net negative. Whether true or not, he has done nothing to convince me, nor even sway my thinking, at least not within the snippets AK has shared.
Perhaps we put intellectuals in the same position as religion. Tolerable so long as they do not gain the coercive power of the State.
Who is, "Dan?"
Dan Williams. Pinsoff wrote a piece that "Dan" responded to. Dan's reply was "We Are Confused, Maladapted Apes Who Need Enlightenment"
https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/we-are-confused-maladapted-apes-who"
I thought it was very good. The Pinsoff piece that Arnold cites is a reply to Dan's reply.
My reaction to Pinsof is something like John Alcorn's as I'm also wondering if there is a bit of bifurcation in our attitudes about when status and power are or are not a zero-sum game. In groups below your Dunbar number they are definitely zero-sum though I think that might be counteracted by the greater importance of maintaining good relations with people who are critical to your survival, at least in intensely tribal societies. I think we see more zero-sum thinking once the focus moves to inter-tribal competition, and especially if we can be induced to transfer our Dunbar-number-sized tribal loyalty to a much broader group. I might be mad if another guy knocks me off the perch as the top hunt organizer and beneficiary in the clan but I'll need to get over it if I want to keep getting fed, however I can rail against Bill Gate's wealth my whole life and it won't affect my personal economic status in the slightest for good or ill.
Tribal warfare has been "zero-sum" since the beginning of time.
Re: "perhaps it is not an error to perceive the market as zero-sum."
Unless there is 'perfect competition,' market exchanges can involve bargaining and conflict over the balance of consumer (buyer) surplus and of producer (seller) surplus in the gains from trade. Micro foundations countenance this zero-sum element.
Nonetheless my sense is that people, by and large, recognize gains from trade, as well as some spirit of mutual benefit in commerce.
By contrast, by and large, there is more acrimony in labor markets, and people often take a dim view of "profit" and of billionaires who are not star inventors, athletes, entertainers. People take a dim view of political corruption.
By and large, status and envy are local phenomena. Modern media facilitate invidious comparison with global elites. This has some impact on politics.
I submit that these mixed attitudes about markets (and concern about the impacts of markets on inequality and politics) are longstanding, and that they have not been neglected by scholars.
Market economics is anything but zero-sum. In a perfect form, 2 parties AGREE to a transaction that benefits both. Where it gets tricky is when a third party, i.e., government, sticks its nose into it by way of regulation. Tax the transaction and be done w/it.
Perhaps ironically, maybe if we put Magoon’s panegyric to the Scottish Englightenment into historical context we can get an illustration of what Pinsof is getting at. A timeline of significant relevant events in Scottish history might help:
1695 - The Parliament of Scotland charters a joint-stock company, the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, to establish Scottish international trade. Parliament grants The Company a monopoly of Scottish trade to India, Africa and the Americas and 21 years of exemptions from taxation. One of The Company’s ventures includes seizing territory from Spain to establish a New Caledonia or Britain-in-Panama colony the Darien Gap area of present day Panama. The plan was for the colony, to establish and manage an overland route to connect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. About 1,500 people invest in The Company in an amount totaling about a quarter of liquid Scottish assets at the time.
1698 - A fleet of 13 Company merchant ships, transports around 1,200 men, women and children to Darien. But Paterson’s vision and the financial backing of a wide section of the Scottish nation was not enough to ensure success.
1699 – A second group of colonists arrive 7 months after the first group to find that fever epidemic, food shortages, and attacks by native peoples and foreign powers have resulted in hundreds of deaths. Only three of the 13 company ships that landed at Darien return to Scotland. The Darien venture is ended and many investors are bankrupted. The Company’s debts and the interest on them grow and the Company is unable to wind up its affairs.
1707 – Scotland enters into the Act of Union 1707 uniting the kingdoms of Scotland and England, abolishing the independent Scottish Parliament and placing Scotland under a unified British-Scottish “Parliament of Great Britain.” This is despite widespread opposition among the Scottish people. (https://scottishhistorysociety.com/popular-opposition-to-the-ratification-of-the-treaty-of-anglo-scottish-union-in-1706-7/ ). However, as part of the unity scheme, the new joint government agrees to cover the cost of winding up the Company as well as to impose even higher taxes for Scotland. Popular opposition to the Act of Union continues for decades.
1713 - A motion to dissolve the union between England and Scotaland is introduced in the House of Lords and only defeated by four votes.
1715 - The ‘15 Jacobite, driven in part by opposition to Union, attempts to restore the Stuart Monarchy.
1723 – Adam Smith born. Society of Improvers in the Knowledge of Agriculture in Scotland founded, one of the early forums for Scottish Enlightenment figures to gather.
1743 - Glasgow Political Economy Club founded. Adam Smith would be an early member. Created links between merchants and academics.
1745 - Bonnie Prince Charlie leads the last great uprising to restore Scottish independence but it all ends in defeat at the Battle of Culloden on April 16, 1746.
1776 – Wealth of Nations published.
In this context, Wealth of Nations seems more like a rationalization for Scottish submission to English domination and to whitewash the cynical origins of the Union as bailout for failed investments. Might this be supporting evidence for Pinsof? Especially when he writes:
“The disconnect between audience perceptions and objective reality is why I am more pessimistic than Dan about the world-fixing motivations of intellectuals. The lack of depth to these motivations is precisely what should make us skeptical that they will always lead to good outcomes, or that they are the main causes of moral and material progress throughout history.“
Magoon is talking about the recognition and development of the concept of “commercial society” so it doesn’t really have much to do with whatever the realities of any particular commercial society were. So it doesn’t really seem to tie to Pinsof. It’s more of a historiography point. You might consider whether the Smith’s Scottish Enlightenment criticisms of the English East India Company provide a better illustration of Pinsof’s claim that “societies can get richer without anyone knowing or caring about Adam Smith.”
The British East India Company was founded in 1600 and granted monopolies and tax exemptions just like the Scottish Company. However, as we all know it survived into the 19th century. The Wealth of Nations contains Smith’s harsh criticisms of the East India Company which never really produced much in the way of policy change. One might claim that Smith’s influence had a part in Pitt’s India Act of 1784 which created a Board of Control in London or the Charter Acts of 1793, 1813, 1833, and 1853 that reduced the company’s commercial monopolies. But the fact that it had gotten into financial distress around 1773 and had to borrow money from the government instead of the other way around certainly would seem to be seen as a powerful incentive for Parliament to get involved in monitoring the company’s activities.
One source explains why Smith and his anti-mercantilist philosophy may have had about the degree of influence that Pinsof asserts in his claim”
“The British East India Company (EIC) played a crucial role as a lender to the British government, particularly during the 18th century. By the mid-18th century, public borrowing from the EIC had reached £4.2 million, making it a major source of state financing. The Company was not only a significant contributor to British fiscal stability—providing nearly one-third of customs revenues—but also a key financial partner during wartime. The British state relied on the EIC to fund its regular wars, while the Company depended on state support during liquidity crises, such as the emergency £1.4 million loan from Lord North’s government in 1773. This deep financial interdependence was reinforced by overlapping personnel, shared economic interests, and mutual reliance: the EIC financed the state, and the state rescued the EIC from bankruptcy. As historian Huw Bowen noted, "no minister could ever afford to let the East India Company go to the wall." The EIC’s financial strength was institutionalized through its monopoly, trade profits, and ability to raise capital—making it one of the first firms deemed "too big to fail."”
And this can be seen as part of a longer tradition dating back to, for example, King Louis VII of France granting a charter to the city of Lorris in 1155, establishing its rights and privileges. Such charters were seen as way to promote a rise in market towns, economic growth, urbanization, and increasing importance of trade as a source of revenues. King Louis VII might not have used the phrase “commercial society” but his actions speak of an appreciation of its reality.
Before reading the quoted paragraph which you end, my thought was that one example does not make the case. When I read the quote I was even more surprised to find that he set a rather high bar of never failing. Of course intellectuals don't always get it right. But that doesn't mean they are a net negative. Whether true or not, he has done nothing to convince me, nor even sway my thinking, at least not within the snippets AK has shared.