zero sum game?????????????

Quote from Perseus:

winter, the futures market is part of the economy, it is not seperate. However even if i take what you say, that it 'helps the economy', that still supports my case. Even if it only helps the economy that makes it not zero-sum for a true zero-sum game would not help the economy.
More...
You agreed that poker games are zero-sum. Poker games help the economy (create a demand for poker chips to be produced).

You cannot change the definition of zero-sum to support your position, the definition of zero-sum does not preclude it from having beneficial external results. Using your definition, nothing is zero-sum.
 
PERSEUS, you cannot make up definitions to further your point

zero sum MEANS something

it was defined, and created, many years ago as a concept in game theory. if you don't like the term, that's groovy, but it does not change what zero sum means

the issue is not "are futures markets beneficial?"

of course they are

the issue was/is "ARE THEY ZERO sum"?

they ARE

that is not a bad thing. it is simply A THING

heck, i make a living trading futures. i love futures

but that is 100% irrelevant to the fact that they are a zero sum game

i also love stocks. stocks are kewl

they are not zero sum

you could make 20 million dollars in the futures market. that is irrelevant to the fact that they are zero sum

if all speculators were magically eliminated from the futures markets and futures were SOLELY a hedging vehicle, they would still be zero sum

one thing is absolutely 100% incontrovertible. you cannot have a NET gain among participants in the futures market

period.

you can have a net gain among participants in the stock market

the latter, due to its structute can GROW wealth, as a system

the former cannot - because the net sum is z*E*R*O
 
and you guys cannot make the definition of game and zero-sum to suit your own purposes. Is the game only the trading in the markets or is the game to make make money overall while using the markets to do so? why do you get to define the game and the rules? why do you get to define wealth only as the money accounting used in a transaction?

just refute the farmer and archer daniels example, make it a one contract and one trade exchange, and tell me it is zero sum for the participants.

i was already going to point out that poker was not zero sum due to the fact that entertainment is generated, but that hurts your case, not mine. but lets take that further, what if trading and losing REALLY entertains me? eh? what if it entertains me so much it is actually cost effective? what about all the jobs created in the futures industry, to use your own poker example, to refute your claim.

oh and yes i can come up with a zero sum game- lets trade something, anything, that we don't care about without regard to economic gain. the winner is the one with the most headache.

To ignore the broader benefit and only focus on the accounting of a transaction is narrow.
 
dood. get a frigging dictionary.

zero sum game has a precise, defined meaning

futures are a zero sum game.

it is not a VALUE judgment

it is a structural definition

apples are a fruit

that is a definition.

it doesn't say they are good, bad, or whatever

get an education. obviously you can't read
 
also, it is simply astounding to me that you cannot grok the concept of what zero sum means

it is not a value judgment.

it does not say the futures market are icky and bad

it says something instructive about their structure.

personally, i love futures. love em. that is 100% irrelevant to their structure as zero sum

you don't have to understand that a car is propelled by an internal combustion engine in order to drive it. or that it is far less efficient in terms of energy expended per mile driven as compared to a bicycle etc. to have fun driving one

but it IS propelled by an internal combustion engine. argue for the "engine fairies" all you want, but that doesn't change the reality
 
So, on Saturday, when I responded to the original post, I wasn't really sure whether the stock market was zero-sum. I was sure that the futures market was. I never would have imagined that this thread would have taken up more than 30 pages, and I certainly would never expected people to be arguing that the futures market is not zero sum after so many posts.

How can anyone still argue that the futures market is not zero-sum? I just don't understand the ignorance. For those of you that are too lazy to click a freakin link, I'll post them again. You people suck. Please do not let this thread reach 40 pages.


http://www.pathtoinvesting.org/cate...futures_071.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/sea...zero-sum game

http://www.cbot.com/cbot/docs/56449.pdf

http://www.cme.com/edu/course/intro/futrvsstck9697.html
 
The worst traders I know are the ones that cannot admit they are wrong. You guys are worse than them, because not only can you not admit you're wrong, but you keep arguing to the contrary.

But what if you count this...

But what about the time that so and so made money selling whores....

Drop it. Please. Move on.
 
<GOLF CLAP>

frankly, i can't believe these people that are arguing the futures market isn't zero sum or the ones arguing that the stock market IS, are anything but papertrading 16 yr old playing on their mommy's imac
 
Markets are NOT a zero sum game because:

1) Markets are not efficient, which is why secular booms and busts occur every 20 years or so. History is facts.

2) The existence of derivatives (futures, options, other leverage systems, etc) make it impossible to be zero sum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top