On a very small scale, it's certainly true that if I gain, somebody else might lose. If I take away my brother's chocolate, then he will lose it, and will most probably not get anything comparable.
But on greater scale, say, nationally, if one person (e.g. successful start-up founder) makes a fortune, will this generally be bad for the other players? Or can it be beneficial (e.g. if the money is not saved up)? Does it entirely depend on the rich person's spending behavior?
I completely agree with denesp's answer, however I think you can make it even simpler.
On a very small scale, it's certainly true that if I gain, somebody else might lose. If I take away my brother's chocolate, then he will lose it, and will most probably not get anything comparable.
OK, let's say I prefer chocolate to wine gums and my brother likes wine gums better than chocolate. Then taking his chocolate away and giving him my wine gums is good for both of us, so we both win and no one loses. So the answer is no.
You could even consider the extreme case in which your brother hates chocolate and you are doing him a favor by taking it. (Works not as well with chocolate, but you might think of recycling.)
In general these "trades" are called Pareto improvements.
But this is only one example, if you are interested in the subject, you might be interested in one of the following basic economic ideas:
Trade between two countries in which one of them is more efficient than the other: Ricardo's comparative advantage example
Your brother likes to give: altruism / warm glow (I really don't like the wiki page here, but was not able to find a decent non-scientific explanation of it.)
Or maybe other other-regarding preferences, for example fairness (your brother has a lot of chocolate and feels better if he gives you some): Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity (On page 3 is a brief "Non-technical summary" which might be interesting.)
As you can see there are many examples for a "win-win" situation and there are many many others, depending on the situation.
This is a fundamental question which economics can answer quite well. I'll rephrase your question a little bit- Is economics a zero sum game?
The answer is no. Certainly some transactions are, but for the most part, no. It can be proven a little bit more rigorously and denesp has alluded to that by linking the fundamental theorems of welfare economics. I'll focus on an example showing why it isn't a zero sum game.
Value can be created. Say you are an artist and make a painting. The painting (assuming it is good) has some value to people. You can sell that painting and use that money to fund other purchases.
The purchaser of the painting is better off than without it. Why would he buy the painting if he would prefer having the money? He wouldn't. And you are better off because you prefer having the money over your painting.
A large part of economics involves the behavior of markets and mutually beneficial transactions.
As a complement to the great answers already here, let me give an even simpler small scale example in which you win and no one else loses:
Suppose you have a broken fan at home.
Scenario A: you relax on your couch then go to sleep.
Scenario B: you take your fan apart, figure it's just a loose screw, tighten it, put it back together again, and it's fixed. BAM, value created. Then you go to sleep.
In Scenario B, you gained and nobody lost. When you went to sleep there was literally more material wealth in the world compared to Scenario A. And measurably more so: you can certainly sell the fan for more money now that it's fixed.
If I take away my brother's chocolate, then he will lose it, and will most probably not get anything comparable.
The problem with this example is that there is no economy between you and your brother. You simply stole his chocolate. Conquered it if you will. No trade ever took place. The best way I've ever heard this explained is by calling it the "conquest paradigm." Before capitalism dominated the world, tribes and countries would gain wealth by conquering other civilizations and taking their possessions. This is what you have done, albeit without all the bloodshed.
In a market economy, you would have to make a deal with your brother in order to get his chocolate. In exchange for his chocolate, he wants some of your broccoli because he is on a diet and wants to lose weight. You trade him two heads of broccoli for his chocolate bar. Who wins in this situation?
Nobody would ever make any trades if he stood to lose from the deal. You benefit from giving up your broccoli for his chocolate because you wanted a tasty snack. Your brother benefits from giving up his chocolate for your broccoli because health is important to him. Though all the two of you did was exchange items, both of you benefited.
In a market economy, every trade creates wealth because both parties involved benefit. When the farmer sells you his wheat, he benefits because he would rather have your money than the wheat he sold you; he has lots more, after all. You benefit because eating and staying alive is more important than the money you gave him. Because you both benefited, both of you are said to be wealthier; you live a longer life and he has more money.
A lot of people will characterize capitalism and markets as competitive, but I prefer to think of it as cooperation on a grand scale. Though it's true that Apple and Microsoft might be competing for the business of the consumer, it is important to remember that both of these companies are cooperating with the consumers, their employees, and their suppliers with every trade they make.
Capitalism does not have to be a zero-sum game.
I think this is more of a microeconomics question.
As long as it is not forceful but voluntary reallocation of goods no one loses. In fact even more can be said but you need to read up on it a little. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics
The basic idea is that trade benefits both parties.
An example: Your fridge is broken and you want to fix it. Let's say you know the problem, but it will cost you 100 dollars to fix it yourself. This can be because you do not have the tools to fix it or because you need to take time off from work to do so. Suppose the cost of fixing is merely 60 dollars for a repairman, because he already has the tools and/or has a lower hourly wage. Then if you pay him any amount between 60 and 100 dollars and he fixes your fridge you both benefit.
Your startup example may be a little different as it seems to about a restructuring of industry. Another example:
Suppose someone invents low cost (virtually nil) teleportation. Now getting to work will take 1 second and you will only need to pay 20 cents on the dollar to get there. Pretty much everyone's life will be made easier by this invention, so a lot of people will use it on a daily basis, they are clearly beneficiaries. The inventor would also make a fortune. However this will probably cause a lot of unemployment in the transport industry. Given some assumptions you could fix this with transfers: You could transfer money from the people (in form of taxes) who benefited from the invention to the people (in form of social security) who suffered a loss because of it. Mind that this is a fairness and equility issue and is not itself incorporated in the idea of trade.
I think the easiest way of looking at this is the macroeconomic perspective. If every transaction necessarily was a zero-sum game, there couldn't be growth.
Yet, we see that (under several measures) all economies are growing and getting richer - even if the underlying distribution is skewing, which is irrelevant for this point.
As an additional answer, i.e. to supplement others, I think there is one further concept you might want to look into. "If I gain, somebody else loses," is, I would argue, at least roughly speaking, a good description of mercantilism, a pretty dominant economic theory until a few centuries ago. I'm bringing this to your attention because a) it is a manifestation of your philosophy at the national level, as you specify, and b) it's a neat historical example of a fairly prevalent economic theory that seems pretty silly today.
I have flaged this question to be closed, because it is hopelessly vague -and the many answers here prove it: it is obvious that the terms "gain" and "loss" mean very different things to the answerers, which means that the problem is in the question, which used the words as though there exists a single, universally agreed upon meaning for each.
To give the most interesting (to me) example, I pick an excerpt from another answer:
"Well, the guy selling chocolate looses cause now he lost a possible sell to you."
The emphasis is mine. Such reasoning is sustained by the following interpretation of the meaning/ definition of the word "loss":
$$\text{Loss is any foregone opportunity for gain.}$$
Let's see how this works. Assume I enter willfully and freely into a transaction and the same holds for the other guy, who after the transaction will move abroad. Expressing utilities in monetary (willingness-to-pay) terms, what I give has willingness-to-pay for me say $10$, while what I receive has $12$. So it appears that, after the transaction, I am better off, by $12-10 = 2$... No I am not: I just experienced a loss here: I forfeited the opportunity to get the other guy's stuff without giving up anything. In that case I would have ended up with $10+12 = 22$. Currently, I have only $12$. So this transaction created a loss for me, equal to $22-12 = 10$, given how "loss" is defined. Mind you, there is folk belief that such a definition for "loss" is not just a twisting of words and meanings, but it characterizes the "venturous spirits".
The above only shows that if such terms are not defined somewhat strictly and, unavoidably, narrowly, useful conversation around them is difficult if not impossible -let alone answering a question about them.
I agree with several other posts here, but let me add a simple logical proof:
Suppose I sell my used car for, whatever amount, say \$1000. So someone gives me \$1000 and I give him the car.
Why did we do this? You could reason like this: If the car is worth more than \$1000, then I am being cheated. If the car is worth less than \$1000, than the person who buys it is being cheated. Perhaps one of us is a fool who was duped by a con man. But there are plenty of places you can look up the "book value" of a car today quickly and easily. And people make these sort of transactions all the time. There must be thousands of used cars sold in America every day. In every transaction, is one of the people a fool?
You might reply that the deal is fair if the car is worth EXACTLY \$1000. But if that's the case, why should we go to the trouble to make the exchange? If having ten \$100 bills in his pocket is EXACTLY as good as having this used car, why should the buyer look up classified ads and run all over town just to exchange something for something else that has exactly the same value?
No, the only possible explanation is that to me, the seller, ten \$100 bills are worth more than the car, but that to the buyer, the car is worth more than ten \$100 bills. Perhaps I have another car and have little use for two cars, while the buyer's only car was destroyed in an accident yesterday. There are all sorts of things that I can buy with the cash that are more valuable to me than having a second car sitting in the driveway.
This is what makes transactions possible: There is no such thing as "THE value" of a product. What a product is worth to me has nothing to do with what it is worth to you. Thus it is possible for two people to trade products and both to come out ahead. By the values that each person assigned to the products involved, both got more than they gave.
Not every action means that somebody is losing. Let's look at the 3 economical sectors.
Extracting natural resources will add value in our economical chain (e.g. solar power, recycling paper).
But also production companies add value. They buy goods which will be used as a resource to create new products. The value of the end-product is often much bigger than the value of the consumed input products. (e.g. producing furniture)
But the same goes for distribution and services. Most economical activities are actually win-win situations.
However, it is true that economical balance can be disturbed if one region is doing better than another. (e.g. Is globalization a good thing or a bad thing?).
Competition also plays an important role. It can be positive (win-win) or negative (e.g. price wars, ...). On the other hand, without competition you get monopolies, which are bad for the consumer. It is partially the task of the government to avoid these kind of situations.
I think that is true, for example when a company gains an important place in the market with a certain number of customers the other company will lose these customers. Other example: when "Carrefour market" is open on Sunday it makes profits that the other super market will not make. So for me this relation between lost and gained seems valid...
I would say yes, I know everyone else is saying NO but it wont let me comment. So an Answer must be the way..
In given example
OK, let's say I prefer chocolate to wine gums and my brother likes wine gums better than chocolate. Then taking his chocolate away and giving him my wine gums is good for both of us, so we both win and no one looses.
well the guy selling chocolate looses cause now he lost a possible sell to you. And the wine gum seller lost a possible sell to your brother due to your trade. So yes someone lost
Next example
Your fridge is broken and you want to fix it. Let's say you know the problem, but it will cost you 100 dollars to fix it yourself. This can be because you do not have the tools to fix it or because you need to take time off from work to do so. Suppose the cost of fixing is merely 60 dollars for a repairman, because he already has the tools and/or has a lower hourly wage. Then if you pay him any amount between 60 and 100 dollars and he fixes your fridge you both benefit.
The guy you would of paid the 100 to for the tool did not benifit. Thus someone loss..If you had to take time off work, then someone else must pick up your work load for the day, or the company you work for is down 1 employee for the day.. either way someone loses
and the last answer, just cause two people gain from there trade does not mean someone else did not gain a loss...
Idealistic undergraduates find their unconsciously preserved child's model of wealth confirmed by eminent writers of the past. It is a case of the mistaken meeting the outdated.< it seems that that's me (though I'm not undergraduate anymore) $\endgroup$