In an economic theory class the other day we debated whether there was actually a 'free lunch' or not. Here is an article that discusses the unearned riches or possibility of a free lunch.
https://fee.org/articles/unearned-riches/
I took the position of there actually was a free lunch, somewhere. The reasoning behind kind of makes sense, but we'll see what you guys think. Essentially, if we believe that the market/economy/wealth is not a zero sum game and the pie isn't fixed, then there must be a free lunch somewhere in there if there is more than enough for everyone. The example we used was: say someone someone quit their job to invent a new type of computer, his salary was 250k and he spent 100k in hardware expenses etc.. That makes his total cost including opportunity cost 350k. Then assume this computer revolutionizes computation everywhere and generates billions of dollars. Is all of the money and 'wealth/innovation' he created, over the 350k, considered unearned 'free' riches, because now we get to utilize this innovation, at a small cost relative to the actual worth of the innovation.
Pretty interesting topic I figured I'd bring it here and see what you guys thought!
Placeat totam quidem veniam. Fugit adipisci amet optio autem. Dolorem dolorem voluptates consequatur voluptatem neque quos. Aspernatur qui consequatur aut non sequi. Consectetur ut velit vel quia qui tempore sunt et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...