In a non-zero-sum game, it is possible for two parties to both benefit from a decision.
It also lists examples for each.
Zero sum games are often misunderstood and used as a vehicle of misinformation to perpetuate the lie that if you do one desirable thing, you lose the status quo.
Therefore, looking after the young and looking after the old is a non-zero sum game because you can literally do both. My best example is Australia; we have aged care and child care, with plenty of room for subsidising mining corporations.
Mate, it’s not a zero sum game. You can do both.
In a perfect world you can do both because a society has a very wide range of sources of income, but in the end it actually is a zero sum game.
This
Particularly about the misunderstandings section.
Or if you don’t like Wikipedia, here’s an economics website:
This
It also lists examples for each.
Zero sum games are often misunderstood and used as a vehicle of misinformation to perpetuate the lie that if you do one desirable thing, you lose the status quo.
Therefore, looking after the young and looking after the old is a non-zero sum game because you can literally do both. My best example is Australia; we have aged care and child care, with plenty of room for subsidising mining corporations.