If risk/reward theory is true, than isn't economics

If it were strictly true in the sense of a perfect correlation between the two then maybe. I wouldn't call it zero sum since there are still winners and losers, and some win big while others never do.

However your social class typically determines which opportunities you have and mitigates or increases your risk. You essentially have to either accept a high risk to move up the chain, or accept that you are planning social mobility over the course of your entire life.

>>1819386
OP, what do you mean by risk/reward theory? Do you have a link where I can read what you are specifically referring to?

>>1819386

It can be but isn't always

>>1819386
no because wealth is created

File: 1483587206753.png (49KB, 1473x1335px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1473x1335px

>>1819386
if mirrors arent real how can our eyes be real

>>1819386
The risk/reward graph isnt diagonal, there's more reward per risk in the high end.

>>1820470
and also as a wagie you have almost no risks and still significant rewards. you would have to invest a small fortune to get your paycheck out of it reliably.

>>1819386
Even if it were, so what?

>>1819386
Economics has nothing to do with risk reward. The basis of all economic activity is specializing in doing something in volume and then distributing the benefits of that labor to a group of people in exchange for less than it would cost them to do themselves. This is how value is generated.

>>1820801
Ah, so it's just capitalising on synergy and volume.

>>1819390
This is a great answer

File: stihl_hedgetrimmer-300x192.jpg (36KB, 300x192px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x192px

Because risk and reward are malleable if you have enough money or an idiot, respectively.