[gruez]

>I think you don't understand what the word suffer means.

1. You haven't heard of the saying "suffering a loss" in the context of finance?

2. see definition 3: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suffer#Verb

> Those entities don't lose anything. It's not possible to lose something you don't have. In an alternate universe where the windfall tax did not occur those entities have more money. But in this universe they don't lose anything. They don't suffer.

That's a strange way of putting it. Suppose you were at the casino and won a few thousand dollars. When you decide to cash out they informed you there was a "winnings surcharge" (that they didn't previously tell you about) and took 50% of your winnings. Would you say that you didn't "lose anything"?

[cykotic]

According to the definition you linked to no suffering occurs because no one lost anything. You can’t lose something you never had.

[cykotic]

I made an edit to my comment above. It may explain more my position.

We live in a society and there aren winners/losers in a financial sense. But we all have to live together. That 10 people have as much wealth as 150 million people is obscene and immoral. Taxing such wealth to use for the betterment of us all is right, just, and sound policy. Obviously we disagree on this. I hope your view does not win out in the long run. It has won out in the U.S. in the present and the effects have been bad. Such is my view.

[robocat]

> there aren winners/losers in a financial sense

That sounds like zero-sum thinking.

I believe that if you think of the world using zero-sum thinking (that winners are balanced by losers), you will end up with a very skewed view.

[cykotic]

I said nothing of the sort nor implied anything of the sort. In a financial sense, winners=rich and losers=poor. This has nothing to do with zero sum.