Does life have to be a zero-sum game? To win, do others have to lose?

These questions are often posed in relation to customer/supplier relationships. That is, if I sell a book to a customer for $20, does my gain mean his loss? As I'm willing to sell it for $20 when it only costs me $10 (or $0 to reproduce), does that mean he's being ripped off and thus losing?

In this context, I don't think it is the case. The value of the product to the consumer can easily be higher than the price paid (and often is, justifying the purchase) whereas the value of the product to the supplier is often less than the sale price, resulting in a benefit accruing to each party involved. This, then, is a win-win situation for both customer and supplier.

But is it true that *everybody* wins, and there are no losers? Or in the specific area of technological improvement, or "enlarging the pie" as Dien talks about, is that an example of a situation where everybody wins?

I believe this isn't the case. Yes, certainly it is possible for both suppliers and customers to win by utilizing more efficient technologies... And society overall would benefit by increased technology, but everybody? Surely not, if you consider competitors. I believe you don't even have to compete directly to be effected. For example, if Dien comes out with a new technology to make his product more attractive and as a result somebody spends $10 of their budget on his product, then if I am a retailer selling a different product, that customer now has $10 less in his budget to spend on other goods (including my products).

Thus, I believe that it is difficult to find situations in which everybody wins, but I also don't believe life is a zero-sum game.

- Thomas Rice.