Hacker News Reader

Genuine question: I've never understood the non zero sum game idea in the context of economic inequality. If I win more than you lose, overall it's a non zero sum game, as in, our combined gaines are greater than before (the pie is larger), but you still lose(you get a smaller piece). Would someone be interested in highlighting some counter arguments to this?

View on HN

The idea of non-zero-sum games is that a regulator interested in public welfare would still let the two people you described play that "game," and then would be able to tax and redistribute in such a way that both "players" are still better off for having played.

With zero-sum games the habitual loser would eventually wise up and wish to stop playing

Not sure I understand your point, in a zero-sum game the third party could still do some redistribution to keep the habitual loser "in the game"

Update: scratch the above, you're right. But in my experience the ones arguing that we're in a non zero-sum game also argue against redistribution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com