huh?

 

Think about it. If you're involved in fair international trade, then you'll be gaining (in trade or currency) what you're giving. So in terms of material worth things equal out. And if either side makes a profit then it's their gain at the other's expense.

 

profit is gained at the other party's expense, but that doesn't always mean it wasn't a mutally beneficial transaction. maybe it's because i'm looking at it from a business to business point of view. nevermind.

 

Well, if you go into the economics of it then you could argue that via specialization you could achieve greater results than either of the countries could individually.

 

I agree with that concept, but I also disagree.

I think that it's give and take from both sides, someone's going to loose what the other gains. The super powers prosper and the thrid-world countries suffer our gains.

I disagree though because it isn't always true.

 

im an econ major. thats all we talk about.

 

My condolences. h:

 

This zero sum theory seems like a misapplication of Newtonian physics. If that's what's happening, it's not because it has to be that way.

IMHO, those who live by "the law of the jungle" have a negative net impact on the world. They take more than they need or can possibly use. And the way they take causes losses to others. OTOH history shows us that people working in concert for the greater good can produce results that are greater than the sum of their parts.

 

well.... often times the more powerful country uses their leverage to gain the transaction to begin with.

 

Your concept is flawed in one small place... zero does not exist.