Talk:Zero-sum game/Archives/2014

Negative-sum does not occur.

Negative-sum redirects here, but the term "negative-sum" does not occur in this article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kim Bruning: if the article is missing something please WP:BOLD and add the information. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

There is some semantic confusion in addressing exchanges under coercion. If we assume that "Trade X", in which Adam trades Good A to Brian for Good B, does not benefit Adam sufficiently, Adam will ignore Trade X (and trade his Good A for something else in a different positive-sum transaction, or keep it). However, if Brian uses force to ensure that Adam will exchange Good A for Good B, then this says nothing about the original Trade X. Trade X was not, and still is not, positive-sum (in fact, this non-occurring transaction may be zero-sum, if Brian's net gain of utility coincidentally offsets Adam's net loss of utility). What has in fact happened is that a new trade has been proposed, "Trade Y", where Adam exchanges Good A for two things: Good B and escaping the punishment imposed by Brian for refusing the trade. Trade Y is positive-sum, because if Adam wanted to refuse the trade, he theoretically has that option (although it is likely now a much worse option), but he has determined that his position is better served in at least temporarily putting up with the coercion. Under coercion, the coerced party is still doing the best they can under their unfortunate circumstances, and any exchanges they make are positive-sum.

The coerced party is not doing the best they can under their unfortunate circumstances. Moreover, exchanges they make are not a positive-su....They are indeed dishonest and infecting legitimacy within the organization/agreement, etc...

In a free and even a mixed economy, coercion must be against the rules at all times. No one needs to create," persuade or force an economy, as coercion is a adulteration of free consenting parties mutual agreement.

I love how people omit and fabricate theory.

Arguing against fundamentals doesn't work people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33Strategies (talk • contribs) 10:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There is some semantic confusion in addressing exchanges under coercion. If we assume that "Trade X", in which Adam trades Good A to Brian for Good B, does not benefit Adam sufficiently, Adam will ignore Trade X (and trade his Good A for something else in a different positive-sum transaction, or keep it). However, if Brian uses force to ensure that Adam will exchange Good A for Good B, then this says nothing about the original Trade X. Trade X was not, and still is not, positive-sum (in fact, this non-occurring transaction may be zero-sum, if Brian's net gain of utility coincidentally offsets Adam's net loss of utility). What has in fact happened is that a new trade has been proposed, "Trade Y", where Adam exchanges Good A for two things: Good B and escaping the punishment imposed by Brian for refusing the trade. Trade Y is positive-sum, because if Adam wanted to refuse the trade, he theoretically has that option (although it is likely now a much worse option), but he has determined that his position is better served in at least temporarily putting up with the coercion. Under coercion, the coerced party is still doing the best they can under their unfortunate circumstances, and any exchanges they make are positive-sum. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The coerced party is not doing the best they can under their unfortunate circumstances, they are rigging the game.

Moreover, exchanges they make are not positive-sum; they are illegal.

Successful attempts at coercion is an act of betrayal and dishonesty. It is infectious decision-making and voids the legitimacy of an enterprise, or agreement.

In a free mixed economy, coercion demands reprimand at all times. No one needs to create," persuade or force an economy, as coercion is a adulteration of free consenting parties mutual agreement.

I love how people omit (and/or) fabricate theory. And by theory I mean the opposite of conjecture.

Arguing against fundamentals doesn't work people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33Strategies (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)