There would be another valid argument to be made about externalities. But it's not what my original argument was about.
You mean stealing? I'm assuming no stealing.
> But this also means probably there will be no way way for tier two to extract any of the resources which tier one needs at all bc the marginal cost is determined by tier one
If someone from tier 2 owns an oil field, tier 1 has to pay them to get it at a price that is higher than what the tier 2 person values it, so at the end of the transaction, they would have both a positive return. The price is not determined by tier 1 alone.
If tier 1 decides instead to buy the oil, then again, they'd have to pay for it.
Of course, in both these scenarios, this might make the oil price increase. So other people from tier 2 would find it harder to buy oil, but the person in tier 2 owning the field would make a lot of money, so overall, tier 2 wouldn't be poorer.
If natural resources are concentrated in some small subset of people from tier 2, then yes, those would become richer while having less purchasing power for oil.
However, as I mentioned in another comment, the value of natural resources is only a small fraction of that of goods and services.
And this is still the worst-case, unlikely scenario.
It's happening right now with rich people and lobbies.
> It is only power so long as the 95% remain cooperative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption#Contemp... I rest my case.
After the trade, the tier 2 person would still be richer than they were before the trade. So tier 2 would become richer in absolute terms by trading with tier 1 in this manner. And it's very likely that what tier 2 wants from tier 1 is whatever they need to build their own AIs. So my argument still stands. They wouldn't be poorer than they are now.
