In reality, life must be sustained by at least a bare minimum of wealth (e.g. food). Be it the poor or rich, all must win, gain, obtain wealth, which represents a widespread win-win and all-win phenomena, as clearly observed in our society. Although most often, the rich wins more and the poor wins much lesser, but the fact remains - that all are actually winning. Even corporations, governments, all forms of organizations and living things, all too must win to at least sustain themselves, let alone growth.
Since for survival, most people must win at least at the subsistent level, does this mean that there must be a smaller group of people or at least one person continuing losing in a big way over the same period? No. This big long-term loser will perish in no time considering the mammoth amount of wealth required to sustain all the living beings on earth! No mankind could afford to lose in this manner. The millions of poor, living from hand to mouth, eking out a miserable life cannot be expected to contribute or provide, given their limited or negligible wealth, so they are eliminated from the equation.
But the basic principle of debit equals to credit cannot be violated, so who and what then is the loser or provider of wealth?
It cannot be mankind! If this is ruled out, what then is wealth and who is this loser or provider of wealth?
Economists tried very hard to find solutions, but for decades, they could only relate a few isolated examples of win-win phenomena, which are not universal explanation. Not successful, and for reasons only known to them, they gave up and behaved like ostriches. The statement made by P. J. O'rourke clearly supported this view. He had said: "Economics is not zero-sum. So if wealth is not worldwide round-robin of purse snatching, and if the thing that makes you rich doesn't make me poor, why should we care about fairness at all? We shouldn't."
"But the principle of debit equals to credit, which is a zero-sum or Axiom of Causality, should not be violated," says one senior economist Bernard Chan. "If someone could unveil and conclusively prove that there is indeed such a provider of wealth, then it will be the greatest breakthrough in economic fundamentals."
Wealth Provider Theory (HIWPT)
When you counter any economist: "We could have win-win for all, who then is the loser?" Not being able to provide you with a convincing answer at all; their textbooks too avoided raising this question or very vague about this. Perhaps to avoid another dilemma for a radical overhaul of their existing concept, the "statement of truth" may be ignored as "one of those silly questions". In their mind, with the exception of a few, they would probably think, My God! How come this most fundamental question is not answered!
But if the same question is posted to any layman, they would, without much hesitation, reason that there must be a loser because a debit must attract a credit or IN = OUT as prescribed by the Axiom (law) of Causality which dictates a source for every outcome or a cause for every effect.
On the above big questions, one Datuk Hong Ngit Ming has already cracked the mystery and he has just published an easy-to-understand, interesting and intellectually stimulating book on the topic.
To purchase this book, which is sold for US$15 (inclusive of postage), please email your postal address to email@example.com and wire your payment to HSBC bank account 2200000-396-121238028 in favor of Hong Ngit Ming. Upon receipt of your money, books will be sent out within 3 days.