Is one mans gain always another mans loss?

>>1854914
/thread

Oh no, now the fisher has to eat fish until he can make profit again

>plant tree
>tend tree
>reap fruit

Was that another man's loss?

yes give me all your wealth you oppressive bourgeois monopolist devil

File: ss (2013-11-01 at 04.41.50).jpg (111KB, 567x596px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 567x596px

Not even close.

>>1854942
the land that he could have planted his own tree on

>>1854956

Yeah cause there is so little room for trees to grow...

You can probably always find some way, no matter how small, that someone somewhere will eventually be harmed by anything. That doesn't mean the harm will equal the benefit in magnitude, however.

>>1854953
Gains on SS are always a loss.

>>1854906
There are limited resources and more than one consumer. Therefore, competition between parties (loss/gain) is inevitable.

>economies are zero-sum games

>>1855001

And yet gains on /ss/ are always a win, it really makes you think

>>1855001
SS is alright you cuck

>>1855001
>gains on ss
Just that right there makes any statement invalid. I honestly became more aesthetic when I gave up SS and lifting and just started doing pullups and push-ups and distance running again.

Consider an exchange of good in which person a offers person b object a in exchange for object b. The value of object b is, in this case, higher to person a than it is to person b, and vice versa.

If they were to exchange their would be a net gain for both men party to the transaction.

This is one of the basic principles of market economics.

An example, a farmer has no need for 100 bushels of wheat, but he does have need for a new car and a merchant has no need for a spare car but has need for 100 bushels wheat. If each man values more the object they receive than the one the give up, which is feasible, then there is a net gain.

>>1855258
Because SS is a strength training program not a bodybuilding program you fucktard hence the name STARTING STRENGTH