Hacker News Reader

Comment by gomerspiles | Hacker News Reader

What is bad for society is zero sum games. They are profitable for individuals but take the same or more from elsewhere so they raise nothing. There are a few zero sum games where we think the side effects are good (i.e. in the pricing of stocks,) but in general they consume societies best minds in return for no progress.

View on HN

To be clear, interest rate derivatives (futures, swaps, [edit] options, etc.) are very important for banks and corps to manage their interest rate risk. By definition, these are zero sum products.

Also, economists would not term the stock market as zero sum game. All boats can and do rise together. Look at the S&P 500 index since the 2008 GFC. Spectacular success that reflects the wider US economy.

Sure, the stock market is clearly grounded in a positive sum game of enabling more investment options. Things like whether to penalize day trading for its zero sum aspects or appreciate it for side effects are an argument in legislation/regulation debates.

> society is zero sum games

so do you believe the olympics are good or bad? because they're zero sum.

Not OP, but they're clearly a net loss. I would vote against them being hosted in my country.

The current hyper capitalized form of the Olympics may have been demonstrated to be economically harmful to the city that hosts it, but the Olympics have had huge societal value and impact especially in sociological aspects. I mean it's hard to put a price tag on Jesse Owens spitting directly into the eye of white supremacy but it certainly has value.

Every zero sum game has some side effects people try to focus on.. When I look at the number of children who have been abused for the Olympics, I think there are better ways to have an international convention and to push a healthier level of fitness.

I like this take. And yes, you're right, it's not so much speculation as speculation where no value is being generated.

Advertising - one of the largest industries on the planet. It’s not even zero sum, it’s a net loss. The views loses $50 and 100 hours, the winners gain $50

Advertising improves information for consumers though, as long as you get advertised stuff you actually want but didn’t even know existed. I’m not saying it’s a net positive as it’s currently done, but advertising as a concept doesn’t have to be net negative.

If advertising was for my benefit it would be optional. It’s not.

As I said, I’m not claiming that it currently is a net positive for consumers. But even then, I don’t agree with your assertion. There are things that benefit the average person that aren’t optional, and not being optional doesn’t indicate it isn’t for your benefit. It could hypothetically be possible that people benefit from advertisement overall but would irrationally choose to opt out if they could. Just as some people would opt out of social security if they could but would probably regret it once they need it. Just to clarify, I’m not saying this is happening here, but the argument „I can’t opt out so it can’t be for my benefit“ is flawed.

Not ads in general.

Modern social media that makes and sells ads and panopticon datasets.

People like to play these games and thus probably good for societies

World would be pretty full without competitive games / sports

Reply on news.ycombinator.com