Who wins the zero-sum disasters?

[LION63]

Investing or trading of money is much like a game of musical chairs ...no matter how many people get a chair you know that someone will not. Now in the financial markets we have a level of complexity that sometimes makes it hard to see who is not getting the chair ,but that does not mean someone just found themselves without a place to sit ,or more aptly a shirt to put on their back. Markets are interdependent to a degree that unravelling exactly who is picking up the bill is hard ,but we know someone is. With deference to our now banned member ,the fact that a string of successive punts might leave those punters ahead does not change that , it just means you didn't look hard enough to find who was footing the bill.

That is the crux of the matter. Global trade in itself is a Zero Sum Game as no REAL WEALTH is ever created, it is simply REDISTRIBUTED. Countries, funds and individuals etc. may well feel wealthier in aggregate nominal terms on a collective basis but in reality they are no better or worse off collectively.

When markets go up someone is nursing losses and when they go down someone is also nursing losses. Markets are simply a medium for transferring wealth/assets from one group to another.

 

[GReid]

My argument to this would be that nothing in the world is infinite (stupidty is an exception I'll skip). It might be seemingly limitless but that still means there is a boundry.

for example.

Someone digs some gold out of the ground, they have just made a tidy sum. It was the ground that lost out though.

Someone wins the lottery, those that didnt win surely lost.

Buying a house, even if the value of the property continues to go up that doesnt mean that no-one is losing, it will have an upkeep costs, works will need doing to it otherwise its value will go down.

If someone can show me a spinning wheel that gets faster forever I'll consede.