Nevertheless the aforementioned reality was a zero-sum ‘lose-lose’ situation

[GoodTaste]

Does the expression "Nevertheless the aforementioned reality was a zero-sum ‘lose-lose’ situation" tell the reader that the result is still a disappointment regardless of China's efforts?


********************

News has broken that the Chinese government have made an internal decision to allow and encourage more US goods and services to enter the country. This comes after repeated US trade delegations were sent to China in attempts to avert a tarde war that Donald Trump had declared in the forms of tariffs on a wide variety of Chinese goods. China then passed reciprocal tariffs, particularly on US agricultural products in a move where China maintained the upper hand economically and the upper fist in terms of a negotiating position. Nevertheless the aforementioned reality was a zero-sum ‘lose-lose’ situation that China had always sought to avoid.

Source

 

[Raymott]

I don't understand how a lose-lose situation can be described as zero sum. A zero sum game is one in which A's loss is B's gain, hence leading to no change is the total (goods, points, whatever). Lose-lose sounds like negative sum game. -1 + -1 = -2 (not 0).

 

[jutfrank]

I don't understand how a lose-lose situation can be described as zero sum. A zero sum game is one in which A's loss is B's gain, hence leading to no change is the total (goods, points, whatever). Lose-lose sounds like negative sum game. -1 + -1 = -2 (not 0).

Well, as long as one side does not gain any advantage over the other, then it could be described as 'zero-sum'. I take it that's the implication here.

 

[Raymott]

Well, as long as one side does not gain any advantage over the other, then it could be described as 'zero-sum'. I take it that's the implication here.

If I understand you correctly, a win-win outcome is also "zero sum", if both sides gained the same (one side does not gain any advantage over the other). I don't recognise that as being a zero sum outcome.

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

I don't think this is called zero sum for nothing. The term is used because sum of the gain or loss to both sides is 0. A -> +1, B -> -1. Sum = zero (Zero sum).

PS: A special case of your suggestion, in which A and B both get 0 additional outcome from the game would also be zero sum, since 0+0 = 0.

 

[jutfrank]

If I understand you correctly, a win-win outcome is also "zero sum", if both sides gained the same (one side does not gain any advantage over the other).

Yes, that's how I understand the text is using the word.

I don't recognise that as being a zero sum outcome.

Neither do I particularly. I think zero-sum has become something of a buzz word in recent years. It's not surprising for a technical word to be misused.

PS: A special case of your suggestion, in which A and B both get 0 additional outcome from the game would also be zero sum, since 0+0 = 0.

But isn't that what I'm saying? If they both lose, then neither loses an advantage. The advantage gain is zero. The difference does not change.

 

[Raymott]

But isn't that what I'm saying?

No, it is, as I purposely mentioned, a special case of your definition. If A and B received 0 each that would be a zero sum game.
In all other cases which match your definition, [as long as one side does not gain any advantage over the other], eg. A gets +1 and B gets +1, that is not a zero sum game.

zero-sum game

singular nounIf you refer to a situation as a zero-sum game, you mean that if one person gains an advantage from it, someone else involved must suffer an equivalent disadvantage.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/zero-sum-game

I'm sure there are many more pages of correct definitions. I don't see the point of arguing about it unless there are different definitions.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't see the point of arguing about it unless there are different definitions.

Okay, but let me be clear that I don't have a special definition of this word. I actually agree with you. I was just attempting to interpret the journalist's use of the word. I think I've heard it being used in this way before.

 

[Tdol]

If they both lose, then neither loses an advantage.

But if they both lose, wouldn't that be -1 + -1?

 

[Raymott]

But if they both lose, wouldn't that be -1 + -1?

Yes, a lose-lose transaction is not zero sum. The corollary to the definition (of zero sum) in post 7 is that if one loses, the other must gain by the same amount. The 'zero' in zero-sum game refers to the transaction, not the overall welfare of either player. A game/transaction in which A goes from 100 to 102 (+2) while B goes from 20 to 18 (-2) is a zero-sum transaction.

The term seems to have been used incorrectly in the OP - unless this is a deviant usage of 'zero-sum' that has departed from traditional game theory terminology.

[FONT=&quot]"Zero-sum games are found in game theory, but are less common than non-zero sum games. Poker and gambling are popular examples of zero-sum games since the sum of the amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of the others. Games like chess and tennis, where there is one winner and one loser, are also zero-sum games. In the financial markets, options and futures are examples of zero-sum games, excluding transaction costs. For every person who gains on a contract, there is a counter-party who loses."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp

 

[Tdol]

I think zero-sum may end up like those idioms, especially sailing ones, that end up with a meaning that has little or nothing to do with the original sense.