Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Classic zero sum thinking with no evidence or even an overarching thesis on the neutrality of money.

You need to back this up with some serious economic citations




> > Classic zero sum thinking

All the stuff that gives the most satisfaction is zero sum.

Only one team wins the Super Bowl, only one NBA team wins the Finals and only one franchise gets to claim the World Series.

You can see it when you look at investors, even the notorious ones, they are rich but mentally they are not stoked or feeling as powerful as athletes who won such trophies.


> Based on the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, players on the winning team in Super Bowl LVII will receive $157,000 apiece. Players on the losing team receive $82,000 per player. [...]

https://www.kare11.com/article/sports/nfl/superbowl/how-much...

To say nothing of pay and fame - presumably translating to better marketing deals and salaries from improved negotiation positions for simply getting as far as the Super Bowl. Absent other conditions (e.g. worries about exacerbating injuries), chances are you'd show up even if you know you'll lose, and not just out of spite and wanting to make the other guys work for it - but because you'll gain from it, which is a bit counter to the whole "zero sum" thing. Plenty of sport where new records are exciting even when it's simply beating the previous ones.


Like having children or helping another person.

Totally 0 sum.


What the fuck are you talking about?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: