> That time and those lessons really can't be re-purposed, and have no economic value. Arguably the winners need the competition to get better so in a sense th

> That time and those lessons really can't be re-purposed, and have no economic value. Arguably the winners need the competition to get better so in a sense the losers are there to help select a winner. In other words, knowing who is the best also includes knowing who is not, at least implicitly. This may also be inevitable. We can imagine a world where someone declares "I'm the best at X", and there is no way to know unless it is tested, which means a competition of some kind, which means losers. The positive side of meritocracy is that people are free to compete in whatever competition they feel they have a good chance of winning. Additionally, it serves as a learning experience to build your game and eventually become the winner. Equity (or whatever we call equalizing the playing field) is throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one... no one loses but also no one really wins.