3 ms·

I’m not sure you know what 0 sum is. Zero sum doesn’t mean you can’t exchange money for goods and services. > When I go shopping I give them a bill and I get s

I’m not sure you know what 0 sum is. Zero sum doesn’t mean you can’t exchange money for goods and services. > When I go shopping I give them a bill and I get something to eat. Both parties are better off after that transaction. Yes, you go shopping and exchange N dollars for N dollars worth of goods. The net change is 0. That’s why it’s zero sum. Of course, life isn’t truly 0 sum. Otherwise we’d have no total economic growth, which is clearly false. However, how those economic gains are distributed probably is 0 sum.

kergonath 4y ago
> I’m not sure you know what 0 sum is. “Zero-sum game is a mathematical representation in game theory and economic theory of a situation which involves two sides, where the result is an advantage for one side and an equivalent loss for the other” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game > Zero sum doesn’t mean you can’t exchange money for goods and services. Zero-sum means that when I win, the other party loses. It means that there cannot be a voluntary exchange, because to agree about an exchange both parties need to see an upside. > Yes, you go shopping and exchange N dollars for N dollars worth of goods. The net change is 0. That is not what it means, though. In any case, I am better off after the exchange because now I have something to eat. The merchant is better off as well because now they can buy an iPhone or something. We are both better off at the end, and nobody has to lose. A zero-sum game in this instance might be the farmer who was pressured to sell €10 cheaper so that the merchant can take these €10 as margin. There was a net transfer from one party to the other with no other upside. But it is far from the only type of situation in life. The initial assertion was “life is a zero-sum game”. Not by a long shot. > However, how those economic gains are distributed probably is 0 sum. Again, that is not what it means. Game theory does not need the concept of currency. Besides, even assuming that it were the case, the fact that the amount of most currencies in existence just keeps increasing is a proof that it does not work like that. Someone, somewhere has to generate that money, therefore there are net emitters.
- atwood22 4y ago
  Yes, zero sum means a gain for one is a loss for another. But you’re not gaining or losing when you buy something. The seller isn’t gaining or losing either. You’re both trading like for like. Again, zero sum does not imply like for like trades are impossible.
  - zeroimpl 4y ago
    You are arguing purely on price but not considering other factors. To the person who bought the beer, the deemed value is probably more than they paid for it, and to the seller the beer was a liability due to having a limited shelf life and occupying shelf space. Thus there was a gain for both parties.
    - atwood22 4y ago
      The basis of the capitalist system is that price is set based off of worth to the sellers and buyers. Yes, I am arguing purely on price, because the price takes into account many different factors like the liability of holding stock and the utility of drinking with friends.
  - arroz 4y ago
    >>> The basis of the capitalist system is that price is set based off of worth to the sellers and buyers. Yes, I am arguing purely on price, because the price takes into account many different factors like the liability of holding stock and the utility of drinking with friends. Pricing isn’t perfect. It is typically the same for all. If I hadn’t been drinking water for a whole day, I would probably buy it anywhere I could and pay whatever the price. If I really need a medicine to live, I would probably pay whatever the price as long as I can afford it. And there are more examples of this So, if something prices at 5 dollars, it can be worth more than 5 dollars to the seller and / or the buyer
    - atwood22 4y ago
      So if pricing was perfect the world would be zero sum?
- atwood22 4y ago
  > Besides, even assuming that it were the case, the fact that the amount of most currencies in existence just keeps increasing is a proof that it does not work like that. Someone, somewhere has to generate that money, therefore there are net emitters. Money gets created from banks lending money from their deposits. This makes sense even in a zero-sum world.

kergonath 4y ago

> I’m not sure you know what 0 sum is. “Zero-sum game is a mathematical representation in game theory and economic theory of a situation which involves two sides, where the result is an advantage for one side and an equivalent loss for the other” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game > Zero sum doesn’t mean you can’t exchange money for goods and services. Zero-sum means that when I win, the other party loses. It means that there cannot be a voluntary exchange, because to agree about an exchange both parties need to see an upside. > Yes, you go shopping and exchange N dollars for N dollars worth of goods. The net change is 0. That is not what it means, though. In any case, I am better off after the exchange because now I have something to eat. The merchant is better off as well because now they can buy an iPhone or something. We are both better off at the end, and nobody has to lose. A zero-sum game in this instance might be the farmer who was pressured to sell €10 cheaper so that the merchant can take these €10 as margin. There was a net transfer from one party to the other with no other upside. But it is far from the only type of situation in life. The initial assertion was “life is a zero-sum game”. Not by a long shot. > However, how those economic gains are distributed probably is 0 sum. Again, that is not what it means. Game theory does not need the concept of currency. Besides, even assuming that it were the case, the fact that the amount of most currencies in existence just keeps increasing is a proof that it does not work like that. Someone, somewhere has to generate that money, therefore there are net emitters.

atwood22 4y ago
Yes, zero sum means a gain for one is a loss for another. But you’re not gaining or losing when you buy something. The seller isn’t gaining or losing either. You’re both trading like for like. Again, zero sum does not imply like for like trades are impossible.
- zeroimpl 4y ago
  You are arguing purely on price but not considering other factors. To the person who bought the beer, the deemed value is probably more than they paid for it, and to the seller the beer was a liability due to having a limited shelf life and occupying shelf space. Thus there was a gain for both parties.
  - atwood22 4y ago
    The basis of the capitalist system is that price is set based off of worth to the sellers and buyers. Yes, I am arguing purely on price, because the price takes into account many different factors like the liability of holding stock and the utility of drinking with friends.
- arroz 4y ago
  >>> The basis of the capitalist system is that price is set based off of worth to the sellers and buyers. Yes, I am arguing purely on price, because the price takes into account many different factors like the liability of holding stock and the utility of drinking with friends. Pricing isn’t perfect. It is typically the same for all. If I hadn’t been drinking water for a whole day, I would probably buy it anywhere I could and pay whatever the price. If I really need a medicine to live, I would probably pay whatever the price as long as I can afford it. And there are more examples of this So, if something prices at 5 dollars, it can be worth more than 5 dollars to the seller and / or the buyer
  - atwood22 4y ago
    So if pricing was perfect the world would be zero sum?
atwood22 4y ago
> Besides, even assuming that it were the case, the fact that the amount of most currencies in existence just keeps increasing is a proof that it does not work like that. Someone, somewhere has to generate that money, therefore there are net emitters. Money gets created from banks lending money from their deposits. This makes sense even in a zero-sum world.