I wasn't taking refuge, I was laughing at your seemingly pathological need to belittle what you can't understand ("darkhorse is unnecessarily complicating matters once again"). I laughed at Rs7's statement because he dismissed my point of view out of hand with a referral to mathematics. Mathematics only complicates the issue if anything- trying to rectify the concepts of zero and infinity can knock out a supercomputer, let alone a human mind. Mathematics shades into philosophy at the margins. But I guess I'm just hiding behind my 'multi-variate complexity shield' once again. You know what the real "last refuge" from you is? Putting you on ignore, which I should have done months ago. Well, no time like the present.
...and assume that some things just "are". otherwise we'd have to drag ourselves through a quagmire of epistemology every time we wanted do discuss some topic. perhaps he missed this part of my post. dark high up on his horse again i see. of course there's nothing this verbose charlatan has ever posted i haven't been able to understand - or see through, rather. putting me on ignore (so he says) i guess is a last refuge; that way there's no need to reply when his premise is shot to pieces.
You may be wrong but you may be right, to borrow from Billy Joel... depending on your point of view as to inputs vs outputs. I was responding to a) your dismissal of my view before reading it and b) the notion that the question is black and white in mathematical terms. The real question, in my estimation, revolves around how you mentally reconcile inputs vs outputs, and whether future inputs are allowed on the ledger. If future innovation and productivity increases translate into increased money flows, then fine- the pie can expand. But that extrapolation is not guaranteed. And why are traders worried about the long term anyway? From the common 'long run' argument, it seems more apropos for the question to be is INVESTING a zero sum game. And again I say, how do you look at it? Is energy a zero sum game? What about "unlocking" resources? Does that negate the finite energy observations of thermodynamics? Does the balance sheet reconcile itself at the end of each trading day? Yes it does- the only conceptual monkey wrench is the fluctuation of the money supply going up and down on a regular basis as loans are called in and loans are sent out. As Jem pointed out, it's not really that important a question and can devolve into semantics fairly quickly. To me the value of questions like this are as a thinking exercise, as a way to shed light on how things work. I don't understand the mentality of wanting to nail the sucker down and answer it in three seconds flat and declare anything below the surface to be off limits. Why the need to pin down the answer violently and reject all attempts to look at other angles of the question? This isn't skeet shooting.
Dark, I did NOT dismiss your view before reading it. I said I did not read the entire thread. Anyway, I guess I have to disagree with you on this issue. You mentioned "investing" as opposed to trading. In reality, they are, or should be somewhat the same in their total outcome. However, I will agree that traders tend to short far more than investors. So yes, the "ledger" at the end of the day for all active day traders would (or should) appear to approach more closely a ZSG. But it is still not a perfectly balanced ledger. It is not a poker game or any other closed format. Nor is it paramutual, which would also be a ZSG if you take vig into the equation. I don't understand how you can make more of this than there is. Maybe it is just my simple-mindedness, in which case you will have to give me a pass Peace, Rs7
not really. zero is the flipside of infinity indeed, but that - more often than not - also means that the complexity of infinity gets "flipped". in fact, in mathematical calculations/theorems, zero is usually a good omen of upcoming simplicity and elegance. whereas, whenever an infinity creeps up, you're f*cked. sometimes majorly (inifinity quite often signals a limit to your theory or error in calculation). - jaan
interesting i forget who said it but the quote sums it up well: "zero and infinity are twins disguised as opposites."
So instead of trying to bend and twist the definition to fit the game........ defining the understanding of how to define the definition zero sum why not simply see if the game fits the definition......... Oh goody, some type of comprehensibility at last. A description of how the market relates to zero sum when applied as a whole. So then you could also define zero sum at the component parts level of the market concerned. Stockmarket - one side of a trade does not have to lose for the opposite side of the trade to win. Futures & Options - one side of a trade must lose for the other side of the trade to win. Maybe the net zero sum of a market or game can be evaluated by how it's individual componet parts fit the definition and thereby the market or game as a whole will have a matching outcome. I would have thought that would have been a more interesting way to approach a debate than the inevitable degradation into supercilious remark. Funny I had a feeling it could be a fairly straightforward thing. Hey - daniel_m(the mouth - Your own definition I believe). Next time you want to say what I was saying anyway just f* in say it. No need to start using them big words like "dimwit" and stuff.
:eek: Holly cow I had no idea this thread would end up being so long. I do think this was a worthwhile topic though, I do think I got something out of reading it. I guess I will put in my $.02 now. It has become more and more obvious to me that the stock market cannot be a zero sum game and the most simple example I can think of to show that is growth of the marktet. Yes we have lost money lately but the historical growth in excess of inflation by defination shows that over the long run the market is NOT a zero sum game.... If it were Zero sum we would all be trying to get our share of the money that was in the market in 1920. (adjusted for inflation of course) Also it seems to me that the increase in the value of the markets and our economy comes from people who labor in exchange for money.