A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
For example:
- Do you really need a new car, when a lightly used one will do just fine and will be more economical?
- Do you really need to upgrade to a new phone every year when your current one is still working fine?
- Do you really need to buy premium clothes from the mall when the ones from Target are much cheaper?
In that game, if you played "well" you ended up destroying the world. The only winning move was, indeed, not to play.
At the end a strategic defense computer is asked to play Tic Tac Toe against itself and suddenly "learns" about no-win scenarios. Then it does the same with nuclear launch scenarios, and finds that they're all no-win. It decides that nuclear war "is a strange game", and "the only winning move is not to play".
I very intentionally meant that it also applies to Oiligarchy [1], an actual game (not a movie) where the winning move was not to play :)
---
though I would argue the current state is more reflective of reality...
cheers
(Worked at a couple of startups, didn't get rich, but had good experiences, paid for family needs, and put aside investments for the future.)
Super cool concept
"What if I told you you can buy that $10 hat today using borrowed money that you don't have, pay $1/year interest for the rest of your life until you pay it back, but you have to earn $2/year more in order to have $1/year more to pay, but to earn $2/year more, your company has to earn $3/year more"
"Oh and you also need to buy insurance for that $10 hat because it's not yours, and you have to pay us for the insurance we're going to buy in addition to the insurance you're going to buy to insure us from you, so that'll be another $1, or you have to make $2 more to have $1, or your company needs to make $3 more, so now your company needs to make $6/year more"
"Oh and we're also going to devalue the $ so you actually need to make $10/year more because a $ won't be worth that much in a couple years"