What is a zero sum game and why is it bad?

A zero sum game is one in where if you win, I lose, and if I win, you lose. It's competition instead of collaboration, and unfortunately competitive sports often drive this mentality into us that this is the way the world works, when in reality if you want to win big in this life, you need to collaborate more than compete.

Competing is all relative, it's all about measuring yourself against the other guy. This can be helpful in some cases, like benchmarking, so that you know what's possible and you can improve yourself or your business, but it's harmful when it becomes ALL about catching up with the competition and staying ahead, especially when you are willing to damage your competition so that you can "get ahead" of them by pushing them behind. That means they're behind, but it doesn't mean you're making any progress, or that you're better off.

The opposite of a zero sum mentality is win-win. It's looking for "How can we both come out ahead by working together?" rather than assuming that if the other guy wins, you must be losing.

[markjackson]

Zero sum does not always mean win/lose.... it can also mean breaking even and neither side gains anything of value

[stellamoore]

Frankly the market has never been benign, dedication has always been the major attribute to this game, you want to net profit then you invest head on, not cowardly taking cover or befriending anyone, If you can't do it yourself, then find a competent professional trader to assist. Simple as that!!.

[markaja]

A lot of people are focused on getting other people to lose, even when they don't gain anything.

[kayosensei]

Amazing! Short and simple explanation! :)

[CKGoldiing]

well, when you put it that way. Bravo!

[cecipasttenseseesaw]

My dumb ass clicked on this thinking it was going to be about why chess sucks or something.

[Handle-Me]

One version for US to maintain reserve currency

[davidmartin]

Josh, was this recorded in Norfolk, VA? Downtown Waterside? I’m an ODU Alumni. I swear I know that background!

[EveryTimeV]

But the world isn't actually richer, because this is based very much on feelings. At the end of the day, if you make a quantity of a thing, and there is only so much of it, when you lose 50 Of 100 it to someone else, for their smile. There is still only 100 Left in the world.

You haven't actually created anything.

Creation of something implies that you know how the big bang works, and you can freely make any reality you choose. But we're human, we might learn, who knows, but we don't know now.

And so people live in a zero sum game. One person ends up with more or less of something of 'real value'.

[yatharthmittal]

is there anyone from "Arrival"

[joeroganjosh]

If both sides are richer for the transaction why is it ‘Bad’ ?

[cecipasttenseseesaw]

This assumes far too much about the nature of transactions. While your theory may hold true in the case of purchases such as art, entertainment, and other non necessities (although it is worth noting that it is still applicable in the case of necessities for those financially well off enough), however for many, the cost they are forced to pay far surpasses the personal value of the item. For example, I have to pay $130 a month for medication I require to live. In no way is this medication worth $130, however I am forced to pay this much. I don't choose to do so because that is what it is worth to me, I do so because otherwise I would slowly die over the course of a year or so, incurring even more costs as I did so, and, oh yeah, dying.

[toolguy]

Bovine excrement. Many transactions are not equal. When an employer refuses to share the profit of the company with the workers that is NOT equal especially if he has blocked organizing unions. And when a corporation provides high dividend returns to shareholders who have often done little to relate the profits while refusing to compensate the workers producing the goods and services, that is not fair nor balanced — especially when the CEO is being compensated with shares in the company.

[keifer]

Really bad argument. A zero sum game doesnt mean only one person gains in every transaction. Yes, both people may have gained but its at the cost of somebody else somewhere. When resources are finite, zero sum games are absolutely inevitable.

The world is not richer. We're just using more and more of the resources, which will have a negative impact on future generations i.e we win, they lose