6 ms·

> To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. Sports are zero-sum, the real-world economy is not.

squeaky-clean 10y ago
Are sports economics zero-sum? Both teams get paid for playing. If one team loses, they don't give money to the other team.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  Depending on the sport, there is frequently prize money at stake, so while you're not actively giving money to the winner, you're all competing for a fixed prize. But beyond that, the more salient point is that unlike in sports, in the real world, for me to win does not necessarily mean that you have to lose. Every time I make a shot in basketball, I've increased the "value" of my team and also decreased the value of my opponent.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- michaelt 10y ago
  Most sports are zero-sum in the sense that over a given set of matches, the number of wins has to equal the number of losses. Obviously not every sport is that way. A major marathon might have one male and one female winner among 30,000 entrants.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    By the same logic: the more losers, the more winners (for pairwise matches). You can't have winning teams without losers.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 10y ago
    Your ignoring golf for example where the winner / loser split is not 1:1. Also, regular session games in many sports are simply gateways to playoffs so the number of winners = slots in playoffs. More importantly it's entertainment. A close game is better in the long term than annual blowouts. Making the occasional loss highly valuable.
  - squeaky-clean 10y ago
    Sure, winning and losing is zero-sum, but the payout isn't. Lebron is still going to get that $27 million / year from his contract, regardless of whether or not the cavs win anything. (or whatever team he's decided to switch to most recently, haha. I barely follow these things)
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Sports is zero-sum in the way that there's a fixed amount of money to be distributed from ticket sales and TV rights. That money goes to the top few hundred athletes/clubs/franchises in every sport - doesn't matter whether there are a million or a billion aspiring players. Pertinently, active investment management - Buffett's forte - is similarly zero-sum in the way fees on managed assets accrue, although the stock market as a whole isn't.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    The stock market isn't as a whole as long as we have continuing growth. Japan is a good counterexample to that.
gnaritas 10y ago
True, but not relevant.
amelius 10y ago
But it is still a winner-takes-all economy.
skriticos2 10y ago
I think you missed the point. What I read from the statement is that Warren was not good at sports (arbitrary discipline not matching his forte for illustration) so he would suck in an economy focused around it. What he implies is that a lot of people suck at most of the fields that are in great demand, but also come with requirements that they just can't adjust to.. Especially with advanced age and with the disciplines commanding a certain amount of effort to master them (think years or decades). Most people are not very flexible and even the flexible people have their limits to adopt as the professions get more demanding on the menial side of preparation. ps. I wanted to imply that professions and sought for jobs change faster than generations pass in recent times, which adds to the challenge of training people (especially with the still used model of train once, execute until pension model). pps: oh, and low level grunt work for the folks that don't fancy studying is contracting fast, which compounds the problem.. you'll always have quite a few of these and they do have an impact.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  No, I understand that, but the problem with his analogy is that he's deliberately picked a field where one person's success is matched equally by another person's failure. He's overstating his case by projecting the image of the work economy being like getting dunked on by Lebron James day-in day-out.
  - gloverkcn 10y ago
    I have blue collar friends and relatives that would describe their working life as getting dunked on by Lebron James day-in day-out. When jobs go offshore that is an example of "one person's success is another's failure"

squeaky-clean 10y ago

Are sports economics zero-sum? Both teams get paid for playing. If one team loses, they don't give money to the other team.

jdminhbg 10y ago
Depending on the sport, there is frequently prize money at stake, so while you're not actively giving money to the winner, you're all competing for a fixed prize. But beyond that, the more salient point is that unlike in sports, in the real world, for me to win does not necessarily mean that you have to lose. Every time I make a shot in basketball, I've increased the "value" of my team and also decreased the value of my opponent.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
michaelt 10y ago
Most sports are zero-sum in the sense that over a given set of matches, the number of wins has to equal the number of losses. Obviously not every sport is that way. A major marathon might have one male and one female winner among 30,000 entrants.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  By the same logic: the more losers, the more winners (for pairwise matches). You can't have winning teams without losers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 10y ago
  Your ignoring golf for example where the winner / loser split is not 1:1. Also, regular session games in many sports are simply gateways to playoffs so the number of winners = slots in playoffs. More importantly it's entertainment. A close game is better in the long term than annual blowouts. Making the occasional loss highly valuable.
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  Sure, winning and losing is zero-sum, but the payout isn't. Lebron is still going to get that $27 million / year from his contract, regardless of whether or not the cavs win anything. (or whatever team he's decided to switch to most recently, haha. I barely follow these things)
MagnumOpus 10y ago
Sports is zero-sum in the way that there's a fixed amount of money to be distributed from ticket sales and TV rights. That money goes to the top few hundred athletes/clubs/franchises in every sport - doesn't matter whether there are a million or a billion aspiring players. Pertinently, active investment management - Buffett's forte - is similarly zero-sum in the way fees on managed assets accrue, although the stock market as a whole isn't.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  The stock market isn't as a whole as long as we have continuing growth. Japan is a good counterexample to that.

gnaritas 10y ago

True, but not relevant.

amelius 10y ago

But it is still a winner-takes-all economy.

skriticos2 10y ago

I think you missed the point. What I read from the statement is that Warren was not good at sports (arbitrary discipline not matching his forte for illustration) so he would suck in an economy focused around it. What he implies is that a lot of people suck at most of the fields that are in great demand, but also come with requirements that they just can't adjust to.. Especially with advanced age and with the disciplines commanding a certain amount of effort to master them (think years or decades). Most people are not very flexible and even the flexible people have their limits to adopt as the professions get more demanding on the menial side of preparation. ps. I wanted to imply that professions and sought for jobs change faster than generations pass in recent times, which adds to the challenge of training people (especially with the still used model of train once, execute until pension model). pps: oh, and low level grunt work for the folks that don't fancy studying is contracting fast, which compounds the problem.. you'll always have quite a few of these and they do have an impact.

jdminhbg 10y ago
No, I understand that, but the problem with his analogy is that he's deliberately picked a field where one person's success is matched equally by another person's failure. He's overstating his case by projecting the image of the work economy being like getting dunked on by Lebron James day-in day-out.
- gloverkcn 10y ago
  I have blue collar friends and relatives that would describe their working life as getting dunked on by Lebron James day-in day-out. When jobs go offshore that is an example of "one person's success is another's failure"