Zero Sum - Games, Professions, Jobs

Watching some European Poker last night, I couldn't help but see how much of a zero sum game it is. Which is to say, for one person to get ahead, another person MUST lose. Everyone at the table cannot accumulate more wealth. The wealth always comes at the expense of the other players.

No values are created. Values merely change hands.

And, due to some research I am doing at the moment, it is obvious there are other areas of life where the zero sum game is played at regularly.

For instance: Most lawsuits are zero sum suits where one person desires to get wealthy off of the effort of the other person.

Consider the case of the home owner who was renting her house out. There was a small hole in a particular piece of carpet. This small hole was covered over with a rug. The tenant took the rug outside exposing the hole, then subsequently claimed to have tripped over the hole and now suffers from back pain - no actually quantifiable damage, just pain.

To all of us sensible people, if you perform an action which exposes a possible danger to yourself, and then you experience that danger, it was all your fault.

Not so in this case. The silly judge said the home owner was at fault and awarded... ready?... $1.2 MILLION in damages to the tenant!!!

This would obviously be greater than the value of the rental property. And probably greater than the value of the rental property as well as the owner's own home. Which means, both dwellings would be sold and the home owner would then have to pay the tenant the difference until it was paid off, or until X number of years had passed, whichever came sooner.

The odd thing that no-one seems to question is... why should one person be made wealthy and another totally destroyed by having everything they have ever worked for taken away, as well as taking everything they work for for the next ten or so years?

In this example... if someone just came and took both houses of the landlord, there would be an outcry and "justice" would be called for. But when the "court" does it and says it's ok, then nobody questions it.

Anyway. The tenant would get wealthy by bankrupting someone else. This is an example of a zero sum event.

And what makes such frivolity possible?

Ambulance chasing lawyers!

Consider the lawyer. They create no values, they make a living taking values from others. Almost like a modern day robbin hood - trying to legally take the values someone else has worked darn hard to create and to give them to someone "they" deem worthy.

Now consider this... you fall over in a supermarket because you were NOT watching where you were going and you step onto some icecream on the tiled floor. You then go to a lawyer who is seeking Personal injury cases. You run your story by the lawyer and he says... "You'll win."

Of course he says that. For what would happen if he said, "you won't win?" Why, you'll go to another lawyer, and keep on going to other lawyers, until you find one who will say, "You'll win."

So you sue the shopping center. The logic is, they are insured and/or they have plenty of money.

The shopping center receives your letter and takes it to a lawyer who says... "You'll win." Because if they said anything other than that, such as "you won't win" or "settle now", you would go to another lawyer, and keep searching, until you found one who says, "You'll win."

So we now have two different people engaging/hiring two different lawyers. One lawyer is probably working on a "no win no fee" basis. But what he won't tell his client is, if they lose the client still has to pay the other person's legal costs.

And the other person has to pay money to a lawyer for defense.

Now, we tend to do more of what we get rewarded for doing. And in the case of the defense lawyer, they get paid for as long as the case drags on. So it is in their interest to string this along as long as possible. Otherwise their cash cow has disappeared.

Neither lawyer is creating values. One is trying to take the values off of a hardworking person. The other is taking those same values in high-priced "counsel" without actually giving anything of value back.

After a few years of this, the case is about to go to court and suddenly, it is settled out of court. All during that time, the defense lawyer has been sucking money out of their client. And the suing lawyer has been filing lawsuits all over the place hoping to win the sue lottery.

The point being, neither of the lawyers has created values. They just leeched off of the values others created.

In ALL conflict between two parties, resolution IS possible and would take place bar one factor...

A third party!

If you have a close look at any conflict between two people, a conflict that doesn't seem to be able to be resolved, you ALWAYS find a third party. And it is that third party, who is not directly involved in the conflict, which prevents the conflict from being resolved. And that third party could be anyone - friend, lover, workmate, lawyer, etc.

Think of a relationship break up, for example. And let's say, there is conflict over a HiFi Stereo worth $200. The girl wants the stereo and so does the guy.

Left alone to sort if out without outside interference, they WILL come to an agreement. Maybe she will pay him $100, maybe he will pay her $100, or they will give the stereo to the other in lieu of something else, or nothing else.

But now let's throw in a third party. Let's say a friend of the girl. This friend might say things like,"You should get the stereo after all you've done for him" or, "You pay him for the stereo? Huh, if he wants the stereo he should pay you the full amount so you can get another stereo", and other such verbiage.

And maybe the guy has a third party in his ear too. Maybe some "mate" who "reckons" the bitch shouldn't get anything, and certainly not $100 for the stereo.

To us sensible people, if either of them gives $100 to the other, the problem is solved. But when a third party is involved, conflict cannot be resolved.

Imagine if either of them sees an attorney. The attorney will say, "You'll win" and then the fight really begins in earnest.

Think of the case I heard on Judge Judy the other day (I heard it because I was in a client's home and they had it on). The woman hired an entertainer for a certain date. The booking conditions were "non refundable deposit." Which she agreed to.

Before the event, the woman's husband died. As the event was their wedding anniversary, there was now no need for an entertainer. And so the booking was cancelled.

In this example, it is really up to the entertainer to refund the money. And under normal circumstances he probably would. But you can just imagine it... "Honey," says his wife, "she knew the deposit was non refundable from the start. So she isn't entitled to a refund. That's just her tough luck."

At the woman's house, her sister is in her ear, "That bastard should refund the money. It's not like you cancelled for a silly reason."

And now with a third party(s) involved BEHIND the scenes, the conflict will NOT be resolved. And may result in one suing the other - as did happen. In which case, it goes before a judge to make a common sense ruling - such as upholding the agreed upon non-refundable deposit, or encouraging the business owner to do what will get him good word of mouth marketing and refund the money.

There are other value leeches playing a zero sum game. And they are mostly govt employees. As roughly 50% of the workforce are employed by the govt in some capacity, there is a good chance, many of my readers are also govt employees. Who, by no fault of their own, play a part in a zero sum game.

Look at the simple act of registering a business...

If I pay an official some money to be allowed to do something, that is called a bribe. But when that same payment is "sanctioned" and "forced" upon me, they call it business registration. Either way, the result to me is the same: I hand money to the govt to be allowed to do something. Whether the money changes hands does not change my ability to conduct business or enhance my ability to conduct business. And I get nothing back in return other than being allowed to conduct business. Thus, business registration is just a nice way to disguise the fact I am paying a bribe to the govt. The govt gets richer off of this money at my expense. Hence, it is a zero sum game.

The world can become a wealthier place for everyone, as soon as more people concentrate on creating values instead of taking values other people have created. And it can start with simple things...

When a person offers a cleaning service, for example, they are offering people a chance to gain more time. Time with which to pursue leisure activities or more productive activities. So, the cleaning service is creating life values for people.

Creating such values is what has enabled the "west" to progress. We no longer have to make our own clothes or fetch our own water or grow our own food. Other people offered to do that for us, creating life values for us. This gave us the time to better our situation with leisure activity or productive activity. And the productive activity often created values for others as well. And by concentrating on value creation instead of zero sum game value taking or terrorist value destroying, we have become more advanced.

How many values have you created today?

Weakness, Not Power, Corrupts

We have all heard the saying, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Have you considered that it isn't power that corrupts but weakness?

Think about it... if you are put into a position of power, it is your weakness to be able to handle the responsibility that sees you corrupted. The stronger you are, the less corrupted you will be.

Which mean we can say, "Weakness corrupts. Absolute weakness corrupts absolutely."

Consider the movie The Lord of The Rings...

It is actually a movie about power and its corrupting influence due to the weakness of those who have power.

Gollum's inability to resist the ring (his weakness) lead to his downfall and the ring's. It caused him to murder for it. And to plot and scheme.

Even Frodo, who did not want the burden but who took it on anyway, was finally overcome due to his weakness to resist.

All through the movie, the weak characters lust after the power. Lust after it and to yield it. Exposing their weakness for all to see.

When the city of Minas Tirith was being attacked, the Steward sent his only son to his death, and then, when the son returned hurt but alive, his weakness came through again as he tried to burn his son alive.

The entire saga of how the ring first came to dominance, was also one of weakness. As the 12 Men were too weak to handle the power of the rings they had.

But movies aren't the only places the weakness is seen. It is just that The Lord of The Rings is the best movie example of it because it permeates all the way through. The weakness of the characters dominates the story. Weakness and power.

In real life, the best examples of weakness are the countries with dictators. Even if initially they claimed to have wonderful ideals of how to run the country for everyone's benefit, their weakness saw them succumb to the power until it is the be all and end all for them.

Look at the King of Nepal. Recently, because he decided he wasn't happy with the government, his weakness saw him take full control of the country.

But weakness of power isn't the only place it is seen. In everyday life we see weakness everywhere. Especially with sex and drugs.

People, many people, live for sex. They are weak. And allow themselves to be influenced to the extent that sex is the primary thing of their life.

Drugs too - and this includes alcohol - are the result of weakness. Only weak people take drugs of any kind.

Bad relationships are also seen to be due to weakness. Two lots of weakness. The dominator is too weak to allow the other person freedom. And the dominated person is too weak to take back their life.

Everywhere you look you see weakness...

Those who follow the trends and buy an entire new wardrobe every season are too weak to be able to control themselves and be their own person. Those who bow down to peer group pressure are weak. Most overweight people are too weak to put the fork down and eat proper food. Cigarette smokers are weak. As too are those who are religious!

Yes. Religious people are weak. For they choose to fob the responsibility for their life onto some deity.

If there is a plague which afflicts the human race in the modern world, it is weakness.

Fame

There is a show playing on Pay TV in Australia. It's called "Fame" and it's a reality TV show from the US. It's premiss is like that of the Idol TV shows... a bunch of people sing and dance in an effort to win the contest.

During this show, I saw three performances before flicking away. All the performances were not great. And all performances were not given honest appraisals by the judges. They were given commentary to make them feel good - a typical leftist thing to do.

When one of the contestants was being honest - he said his eyes were too small for his head, his cheeks were too big, and comparing himself to the other contestants, he felt they could all be models but not him - he was told he was being down on himself and he shouldn't be so negative.

Negative? He was calm. NOT self deprecating. And said what everyone was thinking. But he is told that is a bad thing. And given some BS "feel good" stuff.

The next performance was bad. But she was excused due to a slightly sore ankle. She didn't have the same amount of time to rehearse as the others and bale bale bale. It wasn't her making the excuse, it was the judges making the excuse for her!

The third and last act I saw, was equally bad. And again the judges made an excuse for her saying, she was so good the week before she had raised the bar too high for her to reach this week.

How does this help a person deal with the real world of let downs and disappointments?

They are only young, we are told. And I ask, at what age do we introduce them to the realities of the world. Where everyone is not super talented at every task. Where some people are better than others.

Why must we forever protect the sensibilities of people striving to perform, or achieve any goal? We don't have to put them down. I am not saying that. But neither should we lie to them. For when reality does smack them upside the head, they experience incredible disappointment like never before. And they do not know how to deal with it. Yet it is only through our disappointments that we learn to handle disappointment in a mature way.

Early in my Tennis days, I went undefeated. It was incredible to go through an entire season without losing. And devastating to then lose my singles in the final.

Not having experienced this kind of defeat, I did what any young boy would do and cried. Big match. The match of the season, and I was experiencing something new... massive disappointment.

Next season it happened again. All season I won everything. Until the final. When I lost my singles again. And again the waterworks appeared. But I learned something. I learned that you don't win all the time. And that sometimes you do lose, for now, while you can win overall. And from that moment on I was fine. I was able to handle loss. Massive loss. And I was not yet 13.

For years after, while playing representative tennis, one of the guys in my team would cry after EVERY match he lost - which was every singles he played on a weekly basis. And I couldn't understand WHY he never learned to deal with it. Until I played a tournament with him, that is.

We were in the doubles. Due to play a doubles pair I had been in a squad with previously. I knew our opponents from experience. And they were a VERY good doubles pair. In fact, I had never seen them lose a match.

All the while we were waiting to play, my partner's father kept saying how we were better and we were going to beat them, and bale bale bale. It was actually becoming annoying.

We lost. My partner was destroyed again. And I understood why. He had been so built up by his father he couldn't mentally handle the crushing defeat, that shouldn't have happened as far as he had been told.

And this kind of mindless protection of someone's feelings so they won't experience disappointment, creates weak people. Weak and incredibly immature people. Immature like a child. Even as they are young adults and grow into older adults.

It is then easier to stay on that side of the political spectrum and not deal in reality. But deal in the "don't saying anything because it might upset someone" fantasy world.

This show, Fame, produces no character of strength. It just reinforces the bullshit the liberal "protection at all costs from reality" instills in people. When you have an adult who never learned to handle disappointment, you have a danger.

While a child cannot do much harm when disappointed. An adult can do massive harm economically and other. Their immaturity can lose people jobs, cripple companies, and can do financial damage to their family. All because they were protected from the realities of the world and not let experience true disappointment.

We live in a time were lack of talent is ignored. And whatever skill - or lack thereof - someone has, is praised beyond all sense for fear of upsetting them.

This has the effect of stopping all progress to a better attainment of skill. For if the individual is told how wonderful they are at doing something, they will stop trying to better themselves.

The other week a new show in Australia came on the air, called X Factor. Another Idol-like show.

One of the judges is John Reid. A guy who has worked with the likes of Elton John, Queen, etc. So let's just say, he knows talent because he has worked with it directly.

One hopeful came on and was terrible. Didn't sing a single note in tune. Pitch all over the place. Dreadful, she was.

When she was given all "No" responses from the judges she asked why. And John told her, because you can't sing.

That destroyed her. She cried. Accused the judges of "destroying her dreams" and yadda yadda yadda.

You can just imagine it. Told by everyone how wonderful she is - for fear of upsetting her. But when she is given a truthful answer she can't handle it. Collapses into a whiney heap and complains about it to anyone who will listen - which will be other's like her who have been deluded into thinking they are good when they really have no talent at all, as far as singing goes.

And because she has not experienced disappointment like this - because everyone is walking around on egg shells for fear of upsetting others - when she does experience it she cannot handle it. She does not have the maturity to handle it.

Maybe when she gets back home and sees herself on the TV she will accept reality. But that is even questionable. As it is more likely she will continue to be in self-denial and won't even watch the show. Thinking it is all bullshit.

Such is the legacy of the "don't say anything to hurt someone's feelings" leftist mumbo jumbo which permeates our society. We end up with a bunch of adults too immature to handle disappointments. And so their reactions are the same as a child, except with the power of an adult to effect certain changes. And that's dangerous.

Heartless, Some Would Say

Someone I know of was in a car crash recently. Their wife died. They lived.

I knew of this person just like I know of the people that audition for talent-based reality TV shows; just like I know of anyone who gets their mug on the news; just like I know of Richard Branson or Donald Trump. In other words, they are as much a stranger to me as any other person on the planet whose name I haven't heard of. I know OF them, but do not know them.

Anyway. While what this person has gone through is certainly not happy, it is no more special than any other person who experiences a tragedy of any kind. And therefore no more deserving of any kind of special treatment.

A few of those who know him - and, I suppose, met him at some marketing event somewhere - have taken it upon themselves to get the biggest goodguy badge they can. And are urging people to buy his product - all designed to aid him financially "in his time of need."

One has sent a message to his list of subscribers. Another has spammed a message board with the "appeal". Another has set up a brand new discussion board where people can leave messages of condolence (oh puh-leeeeease).

And people are jumping onto the "I'm a goodguy too everyone because I offer my sympathy" bandwagon. All seeking their own goodguy badge.

Bollocks to that.

When I was at a company helping them design their training materials, one of the workers lost a brother. And during some staff meeting, a collection was started up - just like passing the collection plate around at church, which uses social pressure to get people to give. When the collection plate - which was an empty and clean tub of margarine - reached me I grabbed it, said it was bullshit to collect money this way, said if someone wanted to give let them do it without pressure, and put the tub on the table.

As far as I am aware, the money that had been collected due to group pressure and no-one wanting to look like they didn't care, was all the money that was collected. When the instigator of the collection went around the business by themselves, asking for donations on an individual basis, everyone said "No".

Obviously I gave nothing. I know of the man. Had even spoken with him a few times. But that is no reason for me to give up the fruits of my labor for some gesture of sympathy.

It's like funerals. I do NOT go to them. I see no reason to go. No reason to surround myself with people who cared so little about the deceased they never bothered having anything to do with them in life for over 20 years, but make time to see their corpse. To me, they are making a show of it, as if attending the funeral shows they care. Because what would people think if they didn't turn up? Besides, attending the funeral doesn't help the dead person. They are gone.

If a person wants to mourn. They can mourn, in a way that suits them. There is no rule that says they have to do their mourning at a set point in time, at a set location, in front of other people.

I want to keep happiness in my life. Attending funerals does not achieve that aim. So I do not go. Simple.

And this recent event is like that. Just because someone I know of experienced some tragedy is, no reason for me to give up the fruits of my labor to help them financially - specially when they reckon they were very successful anyway. (If they are as successful as claimed they don't need this financial aid.)

I'll leave the goodguy badge collecting to the sheep, and the head sheep with their "cause of the moment". (I notice none of these "let's all give to the tragic event" appeal instigators, were so vocal about giving to other tragic events that have happened over the years. Obviously they feel they can get a monster-sized goodguy badge out of this one.)

I know some of my readers who know of which event I speak, will think me a heartless bastard (and maybe some of those who don't know of the event will think it too). But I ask you what makes my comments heartless? And why should I be anything other than honest? I am not going to buy a book I don't want or need to help a stranger who claims to be super successful anyway, just because someone died. I am not going to be superficial or fake and offer sympathies I don't have.

Arthur Miller died. Should we all go buy some Arthur Miller products? Maybe we should all go buy some Buddy Holly stuff. Or James Dean products? Maybe some Hendrix stuff? How about we all buy Bill Clinton's book so he can have more money for heart surgery? Or we need to buy Hillary Clinton's book so she has enough money in case Bill dies? After all, it's the same thing when you boil it all down.

Look. I live in the really real world. And in that world, on an hourly basis, someone somewhere loses a loved one. If I were to "give" to all appeals that come my way I would have no money left for myself. And quite frankly, me and my immediate family come before helping some stranger with the fruits of my labor, no matter how many people reckon he is a good bloke.

I don't know the man. And I would no more buy something from him because of a personal tragedy than if the tragedy had not happened. Using sympathy to get sales, for whatever reason, is blatant goodguy manipulation. Those who lead the way wearing the biggest goodguy badges. Because they can walk around all smug about how they helped their charity case for the moment, before moving on to other things. Sorry. But I don't play those games. And to do so would be to start being a fake person.

If you want to give to things. Then give and be done with it. But don't try to rope other people into your cause. No matter how noble you think your cause is. Because I can tell you, there are other causes where people are really and truly suffering, but there is an odd silence about helping those people. And it kind of becomes hypocritical because while you won't help those people because you don't know them, you want others to help people they don't know, because you might know them or have decided it is your pet cause of the week/month. Again. I don't play those fake-person games.