positive-sum

The move to the positive-sum economy transformed all this fundamentally, albeit far more slowly than it might have done.

But it stands to reason. I mean, we get more productive every year, you know. It's a positive-sum game, long term.

Important though these effects are, they do at least reflect positive-sum developments: rising prosperity and widening opportunity.

Equally, a positive-sum global economy ought to end the permanent state of war that characterised the pre-modern world.

Integration turned a zero-sum game into a positive-sum game.

So, in the new positive-sum world, elites were willing to tolerate the enfranchisement of the masses.

Anglo-American theory instructs Westerners that economics is by nature a 'positive sum game' from which all can emerge as winners.

Globalisation is a positive sum game in the aggregate but one that produces both winners and losers.

Of course, some find in sport a positive sum - an aesthetic pleasure akin to great art or literature.

It is vital for hopes of peace and freedom that we sustain the positive-sum world economy.

To the contrary, a buoyant global economy is a positive sum game.

We live in a positive-sum world economy and have done so for about two centuries.

How do we define our national interests so that it's not just zero sum, but positive sum.

Competition in education is a positive sum game.

What then do I mean by a positive-sum economy?

First, the "positive sum" view wins out.

Instead, we need a society based on positive-sum activities.

And so the mentality has to shift from zero-sum to positive-sum before you can get a productive politics.