You need to watch Hell Boy, may be Adam wants to re-wire your brain. It's a lot better than that mental m... that bistream was thinking about.
You can call anything related to money as zero sum equation, a cycle. Money does not belong to anyone, it is simply passed on from one entity to another. Over what period of time that happens determines the answer to another view how this question can be answered. If you are successful at what you do, during that cycle it is not a zero sum. If one believes that everything in life is a cycle however (like in nature) the result will provide, EVENTUALLY, a zero sum equation. EDIT: The only way to stay profitable in trading is by keeping both feet on the ground, being realistic about worst possible outcomes from our decision making and that largely depends on how well we are able to control risk.
romik, you don't understand what zero sum means, it doesn't have to do with YOU or your result it is a structure of the game definition
PLEASE READ Zero-sum From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). It is so named because when the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Chess is an example of a zero-sum game - it is impossible for both players to win. Zero-sum is a special case of a more general constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value. Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. Situations where participants can all gain or suffer together, such as a country with an excess of bananas trading with another country for their excess of apples, where both benefit from the transaction, are referred to as non-zero-sum. The concept was first developed in game theory and consequently zero-sum situations are often called zero-sum games though this does not imply that the concept, or game theory itself, applies only to what are commonly referred to as games. Optimal strategies for two-player zero-sum games can often be found using minimax strategies. In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons; and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players, the (n + 1) th player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory.[1] To treat a non-zero-sum situation as a zero-sum situation, or to believe that all situations are zero-sum situations, is called the zero-sum fallacy. NOW PLEASE READ PAYING ATTENTION TO BOTTOM PARAGRAPH The lump of labour fallacy is a fallacy which occurs when an argument relies on the belief that something is fixed in quantity, when really that quantity changes. Another way to say this is that it treats a variable as if it were constant, when it's not. It may also be called the fallacy of labour scarcity, or the zero-sum fallacy, from its ties to the zero-sum game. As a fallacy, it often takes the form of a false premise. In rhetoric it is usually a hidden premise, which makes the conclusion a non sequitur. That means that this fallacy is usually either a subtype of a false premise fallacy, a non-sequitur fallacy, or both. In division of resources, this may occur when a resource is assumed to be fixed even though the division of it reduces its content. A simple example might be dividing a cake â a small cake could not be distributed to 10,000 people, because the cuts necessary would destroy the cake. In modern times, economists often use the term in other contexts â often to highlight errors of reasoning when ceteris paribus assumptions are counterfactual. An often cited example of a lump of labour fallacy is in economics, where one might assume that redistributing income to one person must mean taking it away from someone else. While this is modestly persuasive, economic activities can increase or reduce the amount of wealth in the world, making the economic 'game' non-zero-sum. The consequence is that we might be able to take $100 of your money, use it to economically create $1,000 of value in the world, and return $200 of value back to you--in that case, nobody loses anything.
What happened to your liquidity theory yesterday, whitster? It takes a lot of nerve baby. http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/backflip_over_train.html
zero sum game? Simply put (futures): The money flowing into the pockets of the few nimble winners balances with the money flowing out of the pockets of the mass of losers.
Obviously someone does not yet know... That Wikipedia is a GREAT source of "pop culture" information... But fails in most academic areas? Because what you have... Is the equivalent of anonymous undergraduates... With nothing better to do... writing textbooks. The professors are missing. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a cult. Like the whole nonsensical "chess is a zero sum game" surrounding sentences. "Zero sum" applies to money or wealth... That is distributed among of players via a closed game... with no wealth created during the process. It only applies to games played for money... and chess is notable as a game rarely played for money. There's my post... in all it's meaningless glory. I'm sure Rommy or Lil' Whistler... Can find a word or tiny phrase they can take uncompromising issue with and savagely nitpick... Just to feed that retarded monkey on their back. rm+