You seem to argue that the newly created value will be shared between everyone, thus every individual will either gain something or, in the worst case, gain 0.
Then you claim that this worst case is actually not possible, because no group of individuals is perfect at capturing value, I understand this part.
But that’s not really my question, whatever was done to create more value has changed the equilibrium, some people might have lost from it.
To get back to the bridge-building metaphor, building the bridge will hit hard the people who used to move goods and people across the river using boats. It seems to me that your previous point is that these people will benefit at least a little from cheaper goods, now that trading is cheaper, and I agree with this. But they also lost a business, and the boats are now stranded assets.
You seem to argue that the newly created value will be shared between everyone, thus every individual will either gain something or, in the worst case, gain 0.
Then you claim that this worst case is actually not possible, because no group of individuals is perfect at capturing value, I understand this part.
But that’s not really my question, whatever was done to create more value has changed the equilibrium, some people might have lost from it.
To get back to the bridge-building metaphor, building the bridge will hit hard the people who used to move goods and people across the river using boats. It seems to me that your previous point is that these people will benefit at least a little from cheaper goods, now that trading is cheaper, and I agree with this. But they also lost a business, and the boats are now stranded assets.
How do we know the effect is net positive?