I'm afraid the beginning of your comment contradicts your earlier statements. Earlier you agreed that in that restricted situation, it is in fact a Pareto impr

I'm afraid the beginning of your comment contradicts your earlier statements. Earlier you agreed that in that restricted situation, it is in fact a Pareto improvement. However, now you are saying it is a zero-sum game. There are no Pareto improvements in a zero-sum game! The rest of your comment just returns to the claim that the whole thing is unfair even though nobody is harmed. But that's not the part I'm claiming is wrong! The part I'm pointing out as a "straight-up error" is the part where it denies that (in the restricted context of a single year where people didn't know that trading would be possible) is indeed a Pareto-improvement. I'm not making any argument as to the broader fairness. I'm not sure we really disagree on much here.