Yea, but I'm not in the math discussion subforum and these game-theoretic terms quickly describe dynamics that ..jeez, probably would have taken all of three sentences to write out and qualify. Certainly now that I've spent 10 minutes qualifying my usage, I really regret trying to save 10 seconds by not writing it out in the first place. Oh, I don't? Yea... I guess I technically don't have a degree in math, but only because I never filed the paperwork for it. If I fill out the form can we argue toe-to-toe? Like look, people use game-theoretic labels outside of board games and card games all the time, even though in perhaps none of these instances do these labels accurately capture the entirety of the system without exception. Am I wrong to label a competitive win-lose scenario as zero-sum? I don't think so. We're having a discussion not writing an academic paper. But sure, if you're going to grab onto that like some rabid-autistic dog and shake at every exception, sure, it's a label that does not describe the entirety of economics and it does not even wholly the economic dynamic of the world at that time, sure, you are correct. We can all do this nit-picking. For instance, Imperfect information? Imperfect information has nothing to do with classification as zero-sum. Do you even know math!? So let's strike that from your statement. "Imperfect risk" - I don't know what is meant there. So are you saying "nonzero equilibrium literally means not zero sum?" because frankly if you have a degree in it I thought we could move a bit further away from tautologies. Is doing that helpful? No. I'm not a compiler - I get your point. You got my point (I think) before trying to drudge down a lesson in game theory that wasn't at all important to the point I was making and had to restate over and over. If you have anything to say to refute that postwar vacuums in the marketplace (and the US's less-affected status positioned it advantageously to fill that role) didn't significantly assist in the US's rise to an economic superpower, then totally post that. But anyone quibbling over game theory definitions -- that's the dead horse. And that horse shouldn't even be in this thread. Very little has been said to directly address / explain the US's postwar economic progress (don't care about Russia's - thanks though).