Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (50974)	9/9/2006 11:10:53 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I think my last post addresses this clearly. Shall I submit another analogy? You would agree that a chess player playing for a dollar is a zero sum game, right? A dollar lost is a dollar won--UH HUH?? “But there could be indirect gains“ Surely. The guy who lost could give up smoking or drinking or have some sort of epiphany. The guy who won could become a megalomaniac or run for Congress. You either acknowledge zero sum as a legitimate category, or you don’t. ANYBODY can claim “indirect” losses or gains (whatever that means in objective terms) commensurate with ANY transaction. You know full well that the “gap” was not directly discussing happiness or hobbies or “spreading risk”. Rather….it was about NET WORTH within a transaction. You wish to be permitted to argue against zero sum for any and all transactions. SO? I find that gratuitous, Tim. I know what winning a dollar means. I know what losing one means. And I know when a contention is valid and when it is contrived.