The Entrepreneur Forum | Startups | Entrepreneurship | Starting a Business | Motivation | Success

For those that think money is non-zero sum game

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #1

Utopia

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Oct 7, 2016
105
166
149
Traveling
I want you to change my mind...

I have thought about this a lot. I have done research and I still cannot get to the place where I am seeing "the experts" point of view.

Gurus will tell you that money is everywhere, that it is in abundance. That there is plenty out there. They even say that everyone can have unlimited money and we all can have whatever we want. This is where I draw the line.

Making money means that others have to lose money. This is what the gurus don't say.

My point of view is that money is a zero sum game. If I earn money, it comes at the expense of someone else. I emphasize I am only talking about money here. I am not talking about value or changing the world, I am talking about my cash account versus someone else's cash account.

For example, if my employer pays me a salary they lost x amount of dollars and I gained x amount of dollars. If I go to KFC and buy some chicken then I have lost y amount of dollars and they have gained y amount of dollars.

If I am a life coach and I have a mastermind group others have to lose money for me to gain it. After I "transform" them, they can gain their money back and more, but only through other people losing money to give them money.

I have tried to see different scenarios where economists talk about this, but it is always about a gain in value or marginal utility value. For example, I buy a ticket from American Airlines. I lost $500 in flight fares, but they provided me the opportunity (value) travel to 8 other cities than I would have been able to without them and I gained a lot more money because of them. Essentially, my $500 gained me more value than I spent and thus "it is not a zero sum game".

But it doesn't work that way.

At least not in the way that I currently see it. In terms of money, and money alone, I lost $500 and American Airlines gained $500 when I bought plane tickets. Then I made one deal that netted me z amount of money where that person lost z amount of money, another deal where the person gave me t amount of money and lost t amount of money, and yet another where I gained s amount of money and someone else lost s amount of money.

This brings me to the conclusion that of course, money itself has to be zero sum game and that in order for one person, or group of people to be rich, others have to be a shade or many shades poorer.

It also leads me to wonder about very poor countries and the rich. Would the rich not be so without the poor?

I know that this isn't taught and has the potential to be very controversial. Again, I am not talking about giving value here. Purely, we are talking dollars. I really am open up to this idea being shattered, but I have tried and can't see anyway of disproving it.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

Paleo

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Mar 3, 2014
74
134
131
57


So by your definition, these people are "rich" because they have a lot of "money"

You're making some fundamental conceptual errors.
 

ZF Lee

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jul 27, 2016
2,054
3,605
906
21
Malaysia
I want you to change my mind...

I have thought about this a lot. I have done research and I still cannot get to the place where I am seeing "the experts" point of view.

Gurus will tell you that money is everywhere, that it is in abundance. That there is plenty out there. They even say that everyone can have unlimited money and we all can have whatever we want. This is where I draw the line.

Making money means that others have to lose money. This is what the gurus don't say.

My point of view is that money is a zero sum game. If I earn money, it comes at the expense of someone else. I emphasize I am only talking about money here. I am not talking about value or changing the world, I am talking about my cash account versus someone else's cash account.

For example, if my employer pays me a salary they lost x amount of dollars and I gained x amount of dollars. If I go to KFC and buy some chicken then I have lost y amount of dollars and they have gained y amount of dollars.

If I am a life coach and I have a mastermind group others have to lose money for me to gain it. After I "transform" them, they can gain their money back and more, but only through other people losing money to give them money.

I have tried to see different scenarios where economists talk about this, but it is always about a gain in value or marginal utility value. For example, I buy a ticket from American Airlines. I lost $500 in flight fares, but they provided me the opportunity (value) travel to 8 other cities than I would have been able to without them and I gained a lot more money because of them. Essentially, my $500 gained me more value than I spent and thus "it is not a zero sum game".

But it doesn't work that way.

At least not in the way that I currently see it. In terms of money, and money alone, I lost $500 and American Airlines gained $500 when I bought plane tickets. Then I made one deal that netted me z amount of money where that person lost z amount of money, another deal where the person gave me t amount of money and lost t amount of money, and yet another where I gained s amount of money and someone else lost s amount of money.

This brings me to the conclusion that of course, money itself has to be zero sum game and that in order for one person, or group of people to be rich, others have to be a shade or many shades poorer.

It also leads me to wonder about very poor countries and the rich. Would the rich not be so without the poor?

I know that this isn't taught and has the potential to be very controversial. Again, I am not talking about giving value here. Purely, we are talking dollars. I really am open up to this idea being shattered, but I have tried and can't see anyway of disproving it.
So would you like to exchange ten chickens for my one blueberry pie?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
OP
OP
U

Utopia

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Oct 7, 2016
105
166
149
Traveling


So by your definition, these people are "rich" because they have a lot of "money"

You're making some fundamental conceptual errors.
Enlighten me. Where are the fundamental conceptual errors?

I'm really not sure what these Zimbabwean children have to do with any of this. We could talk about semantics on rich, wealthy, or whatever but that's really not the point. It's more important to me to have an accurate view of how the world works. Thus, why I presented the topic for discussion and to see what I am potentially missing.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
OP
OP
U

Utopia

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Oct 7, 2016
105
166
149
Traveling
So would you like to exchange ten chickens for my one blueberry pie?
To do so, I would be out ten chickens regardless. And the economics argument is yes I would do this if I received more marginal value and no if I didn't receive more marginal value, but then again this was not the point of the thread as stated specifically.
 

G-Man

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jan 13, 2014
1,886
9,990
2,186
Define money.
 

ZCP

Legendary Contributor
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 22, 2010
2,574
8,576
1,966
Woodstock, GA
See how these words work into your proposed theory ...... quantitative easing
 

Kak

Who is John Galt?
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jan 23, 2011
5,478
22,105
4,554
You didn't lose $500 to American airlines. You GOT an airline ticket that YOU deemed more valuable than your $500... Otherwise the transaction wouldn't have taken place.

You remind me of people that think you're throwing money away every month when you lease a home or car... No... You got a home or car that month.

If you're so worried about this, go back to to trading beaver pelts and trying to grow your own food... Then you'll see how poor you feel.
 
Last edited:

jpn

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 6, 2017
123
369
188
Netherlands
You're viewing the concept of money incorrectly. Money is a medium of exchange. Note the word exchange, it is a verb, not a noun. Money needs to be seen dynamically not statically.

Additionally the amount of money in the world is largely static (sure it fluctuates, but not enough to be relevant for this discussion).

In that regard money is like water. The amount of water on the planet is largely fixed, and yet it is abundant. Because water is in a cycle. It rains, it evaporates, it rains etc. Money is the same way.

You need to look at the mighty rivers not the static puddles.

If you look at the micro scale of one transaction, when you sell something, someone's puddle gets smaller, and your puddle gets bigger. And you end up spending from your puddle into someone else puddle. Etc. Etc.

This means that there is a "flow" between the different puddles. Exchange.

You need to look at the macro picture.

Because money is always flowing and moving, the amount that can pass through your little puddle is effectively infinite. The only thing that limits how much money you can have at a point in time is the rate a which money changes hands.

The rate at which money changes hands through your puddle is limited by the value you provide, the more value you can provide the faster money flows through your puddle. And even when its in your puddle, it doesn't stay there. Its in a bank account, or stocks, and this money is put to use elsewhere by the bank or company. So money continuously keeps on moving.

And because it moves and is "recycled" continuously it is abundant. That 1000 dollars that you just put in the bank? It was lent to your customer to purchase your product, so it goes back to you again. And another Buyer bought from your customer and paid him which he used to pay off the bank and have some profit. Do this on a global scale and money flows continuously in massive quantities.

All you need to do is provide a bit of value to drink richly from the stream.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

SquatchMan

Gold Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Dec 27, 2016
453
1,639
468
Nowhere
I emphasize I am only talking about money here. I am not talking about value or changing the world, I am talking about my cash account versus someone else's cash account.
You limited the definition of money to.... something that is not money.

Yes. According to your definition of money, it is a zero-sum game (other than the Fed printing more money).

Using the actual definition of money, no. It isn't a zero-sum game.

Your employer pays you $5/hr and makes $15/hr from your labor, so their bank balance increases.

Actually, even by your definition that still isn't a zero-sum game... unless you further narrow the definition of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SMH

msufan

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Mar 13, 2013
200
358
182
Think for yourself: are standards of living today the same as they were 200 (or even 20) years ago? A zero-sum game insists that they would be.
 

Kak

Who is John Galt?
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jan 23, 2011
5,478
22,105
4,554
Think for yourself: are standards of living today the same as they were 200 (or even 20) years ago? A zero-sum game insists that they would be.
This is a good point as well.
 

MJ DeMarco

Administrator
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 23, 2007
29,325
101,580
3,751
Fountain Hills, AZ
I want you to change my mind...
Not happening. You've already demonstrated an unwillingness to a changed viewpoint despite evidence.

You come here once in a blue moon to contribute nothing except nihilistic ideological drivel. You're here to argue.

This is a business forum, not a place for you to debate semantics and philosophy.

Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Monthly conference calls with doers
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Sponsored Offers

Lex DeVille's - Advanced Freelance Udemy Courses!
-- HALLOWEEN SPECIAL STARTS TODAY! Get any of my courses at Udemy's current best price through Friday! Use code: HALLOWEEN Use any of the links...
Top Bottom