You'll have to scroll up to see his point. It was related to how the title of article was aiming at the possession of currency rather than the possession of wealth.
Yes it's quite sad how I had to repeat myself 3 times. At least you understand :)
What I don't understand is why when anyone here sees the word "zero-sum" they rush in to talk about Paul Graham's explanation of wealth creation regardless of what the subject is.
And sadly I've since then lost 5 karma from people who like to jump on this "wealth is not a zero-sum game" bandwagon.
No, what I am saying is that trading currency for goods, like stocks, is a zero-sum game. The pool of money stays the same (barring the fed printing more). Why is this so hard for you to understand?
