Is one mans gain always another mans loss?

Answer 1

Good heavens, no! Human beings are meant to co-operate, help one another. Whenever we want happiness for someone else, both of us gain.

Answer 2

I don't think so. There are definitely win-win situations. Here is an example. Let's say I own an apple tree and it gives me 30 apples. Let's say that my neighbor owns an orange tree it gives him 30 oranges. If we were to sell our oranges to the grocer, he would pay us both just $1 each, but resell the fruit for $2 each. However, if we traded to eachother, 1 for 1 swap, we could get twice the fruit that we would normally get from the store. We both win.

Answer 3

This would depend on what is being gained.
My answer would be no.

Answer 4

yes...but some times happens that no body wins & its draw..Or tie..!!

Answer 5

everything must have a work-value, ie the amount of work someone/s has/hav put into it

[we dont know and cant exactly assess this value, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist]

it is as impossible for two things exchanged to be of equal work-value, as it is to hit the bullseye every time

just as a bell curve of distances of throws from the bulleye must build up, so a bell curve of differences in work-value in things exchanged [including money] must build up

over many transactions, a few must gain or lose relatively greatly, many gain or lose relatively slightly

transaction has this side-effect, that wealth and poverty [gain and loss] will endlessly increase -

even if everyone is trying their hardest to make sure the things are of equal value, ie no one is trying to gain at the expense of another

and of course, even in legal business, everyone feels morally free to maximise the difference in value

the two items in an exchange must be of workvalues x and x+y, and so every exchange must be a fair exchange no robbery [x for x] plus a 'robbery', equal to y

the maximisation of y, plus the many other legal thefts, plus outright illegal robbery, plus national plundering, conquering, etc, can only increase the speed with which fewer and fewer get more and more overpaid, and more and more get more and more underpaid - ie, wealth concentration, injustice, violence, breakdown of society, and for us now ['thanks' to e=mc2] extinction of all earth life by smoke blocking out the sun and freezing everything

the rationalisation, justification for superwealth is an industry - overpaid people who do not attempt and succeed in falsely justifying their overpay are rare

[eg: edward filene: why shouldnt i give half my money to americans, they gave it all to me - 'business is just selling for more than you paid [someone] - the merchant is one who buys cheap and sells dear [ancient greek] ]

i would have thought it would be blindingly obvious that something is very very wrong, when one looks at the range of ratio of income [increase of fortune] to units of work - we have pay from $1 to $1,000,000,000 per fortnight's work - ie, a lifetimes' work to a third of a second's work per $1000

but even this enormous exaggeration of inequity is generally rationalised or un-understood

[bill gates increase of fortune 1998: $18 billion a year, 18/26 billion average per fortnight, ie in the area of 1 billion a fortnight in the peaks of business ups and downs - also reports of mexican druglords pulling $30 billion a year - burundi av annual per capita income $100 = $150 per working adult = $6 a fortnight - and that is average, in a world where 99% are below the world average hourly pay]

of course as soon as the little drops of gain-loss accumulate enough to be visible, resentment [righteous resentment] begins, endless fighting begins

we have now, after millenia of uncounterbalanced gain-loss, got super hyper extreme injustice, super hyper extreme violence, super hyperextreme escalation of violence [violence escalates as both sides try to win - both believing themselves to be in the right - or one or both not caring whether they are in the right or not], and hence we have had millenia of growth of war and weaponry which now, 'thanks' to e=mc2, is teetering on the brink of killing us all [atomic smoke blocks out sun everywhere, freezes everything]

people are too attached to money to see this clearly scientifically dispassionately and it is because of this that homo sapiens will soon be extinct [short of a mental awakening]

we were intelligent enough to invent money, not intelligent enough to control it

like the sorcerer's apprentice

humans are rational enough to grasp the above explanation, but unfortunately humans are only 1% rational [cortex], 99% evolutionary instinctive [mammal and reptile brains]

if bill gates gives 'his' entire fortune to the third world tomorrow, it will be back in the first world in three months [net aid: third world to first world, is US$200 bn. a year [repayments minus loans] according to sec gen united nations kofi annan] - if bill gates put the money into educating people in the above explanation [and other supporting explanations] he could change history from no human future to a happy human future

pay per unit of work ranges now, after millenia of drops of gain-loss in trillions of transactions, from a million times, to 1000th of world average hourly pay - if the pacific ocean was this rough, it would be wetting the moon: av depth of ocean 4 kilometres, distance to moon 400,000 kilometres, crests a million times average depth

justice is essential for happiness - we have super extreme injustice [gain-loss] - THEREFORE WE CAN BE SUPER-EXTREMELY HAPPIER - this argument is sound - it should spread around the world faster than wildfire - but it isnt, it hasnt, so i guess we are doomed

but life will go on, and we will reappear as some other species, because we are not just human, we are life itself - i suppose the radiation mutation will engender some new 'ideas' in 'mother nature'

the founding fathers of american liberty understood the simple point that tyranny is inevitable, democracy impossible, with 'wealth concentration' ie uncontrolled spread of gain-loss - but americans generally did not at all, and did nothing to prevent wealth concentrating from the beginning - and it is hard enough [impossible], even now, after 200 years of gain-loss growth, for them to grasp that their democracy is gone, and they are effectively back in the europe they fled

see my other answers to similar questions for more