[PaulRobinson]

What do you think two poker players still in a hand raising each other are doing? They both still think it’s mutually beneficial. The maths if you have full visibility show it isn’t, but I’d argue that’s the same of the “real” economy too. In the latter example we can point to long-standing increasing income and wealth inequality as a proxy for the house rake at poker.

[brigadier132]

When two people are continually raising eachother in a poker game they are doing it because there is an probability of winning the pot. It remains zero sum.

edit: The economy being positive sum has nothing to do with the way wealth is distributed.

[muffinman26]

I don't quite follow this. Surely each poker player who raises thinks that they will take the pot and the other players will lose. So they don't each think that the raise is mutually beneficial. Player A thinks that the raise is beneficial for player A and detrimental for player B, and player B thinks that their call is beneficial to player B and detrimental to player A. Which seems like the definition of 0 sum.

Compare this to something like trading apples and oranges, where one person gets an orange (maybe they are tired of apples) and the other gets an apple (maybe they are tired of oranges). Both gets something they want in exchange for something they don't want.

[jstanley]

If you think the economy is zero-sum how do you explain that there is plainly more wealth now than there was 200 years ago?

[PaulRobinson]

Is there? In real terms once adjusted for inflation? Or is it just distributed differently?

[psd1]

When is down to two, it's zero-sum.

Income inequality does not imply zero-sum.