formally ended. The reader can surelynsense the fun and delight that an economistnwould derive (perversely, perhaps)nby pointing out how simple the cause isnof unemployment—and crime, schoolndiscipline problems and even youthfulndespair—and what great personal satisfactionnmust come when, with a flourishnof chalk, the economist can simply prescribenwiping the minimum wage lawnoff the books. Fun and delightful, yes.nBut effective.? No.nWe are now at the point of Dr.nThurow’s new book. The Zero-SumnSociety. The unusual title describes exchangesnwhere one person loses whatnanother person gains. With a few cjuicknassumptions about interpersonal utility,nthe total gains in any group of zerosumntransactions must equal zero. Thengains exactly cancel out the losses, andnthe losses cancel out the gains.nEconomic transactions in a system ofnvoluntary exchange are not of the zerosumntype. Any exchange into whichnpeople enter voluntarily must benefitnboth parties. That seems to be true evennin a poker game, where everyone knowsnahead of time that the only way for somento win is for some to lose; the explanationnis that no individual actually expectsnthat he or she will be a loser, andntherefore enters into the game undernthe presumption of coming out anwinner. n short, economists seem tonhave stumbled onto the one truly freenlunch available. The free lunch resultsnfrom both parties benefiting from a voluntaryntransaction. Both buyer and sellernfeel themselves to be better off afternthe sale than they were before.nZero-sum transactions almost invariablynoccur as a result of coercion. Anthief can only gain what his victim loses.nThe necessity of coercion seems selfevident.nNo one would voluntarily enterninto a transaction in which he knewnthat he would certainly come out a loser.nThe presence of coercion in zero-sumngames points our attention in the directionnof the agent of coercion. Apartnfrom the criminal element in society.nthat agent is government. Governmentnhas, by its very nature, an ability to inducenzero-sum transactions wherevernit operates. It is not an institution ofnvoluntary transactions. Indeed, voluntarismnnegates the need for governmentalnaction. And so we come around tonthe point at which government, whichnis the cause of so many of our economicnwoes, is also the barrier to the effectivensolution of economic problems. Wheneverngovernment has acted zero-sumntransactions have resulted, whether itnbe welfare programs in which funds arentaken directly from one group and givennto another, or whether it is import tariffsnwhich benefit the producer at thencost of the consumer, or any other ofnthe multitude of government programs.nThe very fact that one party has benefitednat the expense of another meansnthat to reverse those transactions, andnpresumably to solve the economic problem,nthe people who formerly benefitednmust now incur a cost. Those costsnhave political consequences (for example,nnot being re-elected) and thereforenstand in the way of effective and simplensolutions to our problems. As governmentnhas grown those costs havenbecome increasingly large and, therefore,nthey increasingly harden the resistancento reversing the policies whichncaused the problems.nAnd so, as Dr. Thurow points out,nwe are on the horns of a dilemma. Onenhorn is the economic difficulties innwhich we find ourselves. The othernhorn is the costs which must be incurrednby segments of our society if wenare to solve those problems. It wouldnsurely seem that the solution to thenproblems would benefit the entire econ­nnnomy more than the costs which onlynsome people would incur. However, thenbenefits are diffused across the entirenpopulation, whereas the costs are imposednupon, visible to and felt by specificnpeople within the economy, all ofnwhom have some political clout.nThis reasoning is far from being originalnor new. Almost any professor ofneconomics goes through the samenreasoning for his introductory classesneach semester. He points out the causesnof our economic problems, and the studentsnthen rejoin him with the question,n”If the solution is so simple, why don’tnwe do it.'” The professor’s response isnmost likely to be, “There are too manynvested interests.” He may not be inclinednto couch it in such phrases asn”the solution is necessarily a zero-sumntransaction,” but the logic is the samenas that which Dr. Thurow presents innhis book. So with this line of argumentnhaving been presented to countless studentsnin numberless economics courses,ncan it be said that The Zero-Sum Societynplows any new ground.? It does inna very basic sense, a general sense, innthat it brings orthodox economic analysisnof a host of present problems tonthe attention of the lay reader in anreasonably short volume which is easilynunderstood. The analyses leave roomnfor disagreement. For example. Dr.nThurow lays some of the responsibilitynfor our inflation problem at the doorstepnof OPEC, whereas others couldnreasonably argue that higher oil pricesncould not cause inflation in the sensenof a rise in the general price level unlessnthere were an accompanying increasenin the supply of money. In his openingnremarks, Thurow leaves the impressionnthat the United States is no longer thencountry with the highest standard ofnliving, although he corrects that impressionnlater on. He also says that thenrest of the world is catching up with usnand will soon surpass us—an idea whichnis extremely doubtful because the restnof the world is making the same typenof mistakes that we are and occasionallynto a far greater degree. Nonethe-ni2lnJanuary/February 1981n