Difference between revisions of "Zero sum game"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(A '''Zero sum game''' is mathematically defined by the rule: "What I win, is what you loose" - or the other way round. Zero sum games put the players in competition against each other. They creating a dichotomy of '''"either-or"''' to the exclusion of "both win", or "both loose". ==Examples==) |
m (Text replacement - "==Examples==" to "== Selected Examples ==") |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|description= | |description= | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | A '''Zero sum game''' is mathematically defined by the rule: "What I win, is what you loose" - or the other way round. Zero sum games put the players in competition against each other. They creating a dichotomy of '''"either-or"''' to the exclusion of "both win", or "both loose". | + | A '''Zero sum game''' is mathematically defined by the rule: "What I win, is what you loose" - or the other way round. Zero sum games put the players in competition against each other. They are creating a dichotomy of '''"either-or"''' to the exclusion of "both win", or "both loose". |
| − | ==Examples== | + | == Selected Examples == |
*Chess | *Chess | ||
*Monopoly | *Monopoly | ||
Latest revision as of 13:42, 3 May 2022
 Zero sum game  | |
|---|---|
A Zero sum game is mathematically defined by the rule: "What I win, is what you loose" - or the other way round. Zero sum games put the players in competition against each other. They are creating a dichotomy of "either-or" to the exclusion of "both win", or "both loose".
Selected Examples
- Chess
- Monopoly
- Poker
Non-zero sum game
- Olympics
Related Quotation
| Page | Quote | Author |
|---|---|---|
| Money/Creation | “Generally speaking the zero sum game promotes conflict. Conflicting parties need money to stand competition (in the extreme case: fight a war) in order to maintain their positive balance position. The only regulatory principle to limit the promotion of violence in all shapes and colors is the monetary monopoly's need to manage risk. Fatally, the risk taken by banks is distorted by the doctrine that the monetary monopoly as a whole may not fail. This so called Moral Hazard caused by public bailouts encourages investments in exploitation and war. What really trickles down is violence, not wealth.” | 'Smithy' |
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.
==References==
