[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 971 KB, 1106x1012, 98324.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20451131 No.20451131 [Reply] [Original]

>In every economic transaction, one party loses

Is this always true?

>> No.20451184

>>20451131
The goy always loses

>> No.20451229

>>20451131
Nah sometimes they both lose

>> No.20451279
File: 67 KB, 300x300, 1594800475878.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20451279

>>20451131
>"economic transactions"
what's real is the struggle in nature. cows devour the grass, we devour the cows and we devour each other, just so that our lineage survives. there is no valid transaction beyond taking what is yours. fair trade is a spook.

>> No.20451316
File: 58 KB, 636x674, 1477884821897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20451316

>>20451279
based and egopilled

>> No.20451333

>>20451229
example pls

>> No.20451350

>>20451131

Imagine actually believing that lmao

>> No.20451358

>>20451131
Some people were born just to lose

>> No.20451360

in a truly free market, no. one party only enters into a transaction if it benefits them, the other party does the same. prosperity comes from a series of these win-win deals taking place daily, millions of times.
when government gets involved, yes transactions force one side to lose.

>> No.20451364

>>20451333
That guy who got paid money to get raped by a tranny

>> No.20451376

I don't think so, not necessarily.

I sold a good stock today because I needed money to buy a better stock. The guy who bought my stock will make money and I will make money. I don't see who loses here.

>> No.20451448

>>20451364
Whoever got paid the money won, unless that person undervalued the service, in which case the guy getting raped won.

>> No.20451602

>>20451131
>>20451360
>in a truly free market, no. one party only enters into a transaction if it benefits them, the other party does the same. prosperity comes from a series of these win-win deals taking place daily, millions of times.
when government gets involved, yes transactions force one side to lose.

This. Since value as a concept is not quantifiable, every voluntary transaction produces two winners, because every voluntary exchange is at a voluntary rate in which both parties perceive they've at least made a fair deal. Later it may turn out that one party's appraisal of their value was wrong, but the deal when it was made was fair.

Or, when you get into tools, value gets even foggier -- an artist might buy a $1 paintbrush from me on which my break-even is .50, so you could argue that the artist lost .50 cents on the deal. But then the artist uses that brush to paint ten paintings worth $1000 each. Did I lose on this transaction, or the artist? Or did we both gain?

Or if I sell a collectible lewd anime figurine to one of you for $5 when I paid $1 for it, but that figurine now means you have a complete set worth hundreds more than the individuals put together. Who won and lost?

The only losing transactions are involuntary or coerced, because then the transaction is unbalanced by the threat of force on one side, aka taxes or a mugging.

>> No.20451655

>>20451333
>get paid 100 dollars to lose 200 dollars
>both lose 100 dollars

>> No.20452014

>>20451655
>both write off the loss on their taxes and come out ahead