[TeMPOraL]

If you define the payoff matrix as: [I win = 1, I loose = -1], then you'll have a zero-sum game.

The problem here is that this kind of mechanics can suck up unlimited amounts of money for little absolute value, as you're paying for the relative - to just get better than your opponent. It's the same problem as with political campaigns - a ridiculously huge waste of resources with no theoretical upper bound, just to influence how people choose between few available options.

[dllthomas]

I don't follow the first bit. The second is absolutely true - many sorts of arms races follow a similar pattern, where the marginal cost of beating out your rivals may be less than the marginal gain, but the total cost you're collectively paying winds up enormous.

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

[TeMPOraL]

> I don't follow the first bit.

On the second thought I think this might just be a sign of my confusion in the topic. I somehow always conflated the two ideas into one.