Why do you invest in the stock market?

The stock exchange
>>does no benefit for the economy of the nation
>>does no benefit for the middle class or poor
>>legalized gambling
>>no insurance if you lose money
>> Its a global economic hazard as such in 1929 and 2008
>>your\ stock value almost never goes up and never makes profit
>>usually takes decades for a stock to be profitable to sell

you guys investing in the stock market are the reason why we have recessions and inflations and crashes. with your money, you coulkd buy food, go into the crypto market and make real money.

I don't think I could fit this much stupid into one post if you gave me a whole year to try.

>go into the crypto market and make real money
>checks wallet
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

What good is the crypto market? It's not good for buying stuff and it's not a good store of value. The only thing it's good for is gambling. That's how people make their money in Bitcoin. They buy in groups to surge the price then sell when the price tops out. It's called pump and dump. It's the only reason to dick with Bitcoin unless you like to buy illegal things on the internet.

>selling stocks
are you dumb?

>>>does no benefit for the economy of the nation

It actually does, buisness will sell a portion of there buisness to be able to get start up money they would otherwise not have.

>>>does no benefit for the middle class or poor

Prior to 2008 reforms the middle class and poor could actually participate.

>>>legalized gambling

Bullshit, its only gambling if your blindly investing.

>>>no insurance if you lose money

Thats your fault, do you want to be compensated if you fuck up?

>>> Its a global economic hazard as such in 1929 and 2008

And it bounced back, frankly it was the banks in 1929 and 2008 that crashed the market, not the stock market.

>>>your\ stock value almost never goes up and never makes profit

False, maybe you should learn what companies are doing before you invest. Most companies have shown tremendous growth within the last year.

>>>usually takes decades for a stock to be profitable to sell

Its called an investment for a reason. But riskier stocks could be traded for large profits in an afternoon.

> (OP)
>What good is the crypto market? It's not good for buying stuff and it's not a good store of value.

Its worth more than oil right now despite the crypto market in a recession

The only thing it's good for is gambling. That's how people make their money in Bitcoin. They buy in groups to surge the price then sell when the price tops out. It's called pump and dump.

How is that different from imvesting in tge stock market?

It's the only reason to dick with Bitcoin unless you like to buy illegal things on the internet.

Really...

This is true. Op doesn't understand the stock market returns an average of 10%/year over the long time.
His advice to invest in the current equivalent of the tulip fad makes you wonder if the post is meant to be ironic.

Please get out of here with this crypto-currency bullshit.

>oy vey you stupid fucking goyim
>the stock market is so volatile!

>so buy bitcoin and lose all your money to volatility goyim! make real money.

>put money into dumb trendy bullshit
>it catches on and becomes huge
>sell what stock I've got before things plateau
>profit

It's that easy.

Because there are so many niggers in this country that we punish savings and incentivize debt so I'd rather invest my money with an 8% residual than have nonperforming assets in savings earning 2% interest you fucking moron.

G-g-g-guys bitcoin will recover right???

Guys, do you want to know why niggers in america are poor? Its because they invest in the stock market and never get anything back which makes the jew richer.

Do the smart thing, do be a nigger, never invest in the stock market.

*dont

.... complete opposite. Niggers are poor because they choose to buy Jordan's instead of investing.
Unless you're saying this with irony. Srry.

...

>your\ stock value almost never goes up and never makes profit
>usually takes decades for a stock to be profitable to sell

Let me guess, you did some rookie shit and bought like one share of Apple back in May for $150 and you're confused by why you've only made $20.

I've made $40k off the stock market in the last decade. You just have to know what you're doing.

Any country with a stock market and it is not nationalozed is a global hazard for all nations.

> buying stock increases company value
> company value increase = higher dividends and bonuses
> higher dividends and bonuses = higher tax

Are all Americans this thick or is it just OP?

With quantum computing around the corner, your bitcoin will be worthless in 10 years when some Joe Schlmoe can decrypt bitcoin encryptions with a click of a button. What are you going to do then with all that abstract electricity and computational power floating around the internet? You bitcoin fags are delusional if you think this will replace currencies.

> (OP)
>>your\ stock value almost never goes up and never makes profit
>>usually takes decades for a stock to be profitable to sell
>Let me guess, you did some rookie shit and bought like one share of Apple back in May for $150 and you're confused by why you've only made $20.
>I've made $40k off the stock market in the last decade. You just have to know what you're doing.
I never invested in the stock market at all and never will unless I could mine for company stocks with my GPU like cryptocurrencies

>> buying stock increases company value
>> company value increase = higher dividends and bonuses
>> higher dividends and bonuses = higher tax
>Are all Americans this thick or is it just OP?

What you mean thicc?

I tried once, and I got +30% in a month. You have to be retarded.

I am around niggers all day. This is not what keeps them poor. Most can't even figure out the fucking UI for Fidelity let alone define a target for extracting profits. Shlomo you are having quite a laugh, eh?

oh its a retarded crypto thread

make sure to sell before dump

> unless I could mine for company stocks with my GPU like cryptocurrencies

Not gonna happen because a company's stock is actually backed by the value of that company. Unlike crypto, where the entire value comes from people pumping their money into it hoping the value continues to increase.

Don't get me wrong, I've played the crypto market (cautiously) and made a bit of money. But making long-term investments in crypto is just not a smart move. Too damn volatile. Mining tends to be infeasible for most currencies unless you have a data center dedicated to it, so most people are retarded enough to spend more on electricity to keep their miners running than they actually make from mining.

> (You)
>> unless I could mine for company stocks with my GPU like cryptocurrencies
>Not gonna happen because a company's stock is actually backed by the value of that company. Unlike crypto, where the entire value comes from people pumping their money into it hoping the value continues to increase.
>Don't get me wrong, I've played the crypto market (cautiously) and made a bit of money. But making long-term investments in crypto is just not a smart move. Too damn volatile. Mining tends to be infeasible for most currencies unless you have a data center dedicated to it, so most people are retarded enough to spend more on electricity to keep their miners running than they actually make from mining.

Wrll its either that oh go to the socialist route and have an american society like norway and every american will live better than kings and kangz

>Thanks, Trump

>>Thanks, Trump

Thats either fake or you had to have had waited decades and decades more for that to come to fruition.

Dude, it's real.
And it's nothing surprising either.

That's half a month you dingus

> (You)
>Dude, it's real.
>And it's nothing surprising either.

What manner of witchcraft is this then? That had to take decades to accumulate, theres no way you can start off with zero dollars and next day come up with 100 thousand dollars, must be some illegal dark net shit in the works.

What kinda stuff are you going after?

I'm smaller and only able to invest 20k at the moment but have been seeing some good potential with energy stocks for lithium and cobalt. Planning on holding them LT till at least 2021 when the EV market takes off.

You really just don't get the fucking concept, do you?

It's my 401k. I'm thirty, and I've been dumping money into it since about 23. Really had a gangbuster year in 2017, up 23%.
This. Nothing surprising, I always feel a little behind the ball anyway. But with that, wife's pension, savings and investments should be good to retire while we still have some life to live.

Are you retarded? Dude made 7K$ return on a 134K investment in half a month.

Ah the token ancap jew leaping to the defence of the banks and the boom bust cycle

Ancaps should be aware of keynes' demonic magic though. Their god mises:
>For the activity of the banks as negotiators of credit the golden rule holds, that an organic connection must be created between the credit transactions and the debit transactions. The credit that the bank grants must correspond quantitatively and qualitatively to the credit that it takes up. More exactly expressed, “The date on which the bank’s obligations fall due must not precede the date on which its corresponding claims can be realized.” Only thus can the danger of insolvency be avoided.

> (You)
>Are you retarded? Dude made 7K$ return on a 134K investment in half a month.
So why isnt that gambling?

> (You)
>You really just don't get the fucking concept, do you?
Well either yoyre a witch, or you gambled into the jew york stock exchange.

Crypto isn't real. You're not investing into ideas, into demand for goods, into management. You're investing into luring in more idiots. It's gambling for Americans who can't gamble properly because CFDs and Sports betting outside of Vegas is banned. It's useless as a currency and will never be widely accepted.

> (OP)
>Crypto isn't real. You're not investing into ideas, into demand for goods, into management. You're investing into luring in more idiots. It's gambling for Americans who can't gamble properly because CFDs and Sports betting outside of Vegas is banned. It's useless as a currency and will never be widely accepted.

Yea cause literally sacrifising youre money to some fat capitalist jew will result in your money back and with better products. Its stupid witchcraft shit like this thats why I only do deals with the government, I never use private companies and always minimalize my buying of them even if government brand is bad quality.

>I don't think I could fit this much stupid into one post if you gave me a whole year to try.
What are you talking about? OP is right on multiple counts.
>does no benefit for the economy of the nation
I think he meant it does not benefit the economy of the nation directly. Which is true. The stock market only serves as signalling medium where the health of a company is signaled via its stock price.
>does no benefit for the middle class or poor
True, unless they invest in it. Poor people can't invest in the stock market.
>legalized gambling
If you discount insider trading, this is true.
>no insurance if you lose money
True
> Its a global economic hazard as such in 1929 and 2008
Not entirely true, but OP's statement is true in its spirit. Globalized stock market does screw up the economy on a global scale.
>your\ stock value almost never goes up and never makes profit
This is not true for many investors.
>usually takes decades for a stock to be profitable to sell
This is also not necessarily true.

Real question is... is playing the stock market considered usury? You are basically generating money from money alone, which is very kikish. On the other hand it helps the economy and there is no guaranteed return. I've wondered this for a while, could someone ELIB the morals of this?

>It actually does, buisness will sell a portion of there buisness to be able to get start up money they would otherwise not have.
You're talking about IPO user. The stock does not directly help the company after its IPO. After the IPO, it's pretty much gambling, which is what the OP is alluding to.
>Bullshit, its only gambling if your blindly investing.
You can't say with a 100% certainty which stocks will go up and which will go down in the long run. That's gambling. Just cause I know the rules of poker and have an autistic brain that can compute all relevant probabilities for all hands, doesn't mean poker isn't gambling for me. Any probabilistic investment is gambling.
>frankly it was the banks in 1929 and 2008 that crashed the market, not the stock market.
This is not entirely true. In 1929 rich people sold their stocks and got out. They more or less kept the public's money. Majority of the public had their money invested in the stock market and their stocks became worthless. The banks were not directly responsible. In 2008, however, the banks were responsible.

>This is true. Op doesn't understand the stock market returns an average of 10%/year over the long time.
You're calling the OP stupid, and you're making a pretty stupid statement yourself. If everyone gains 10% on their money, then who loses money in the stock market? The extra 10% has to come from somewhere. If you're gaining 10% in the long run, then someone's losing 10% in the long run. In the long run, the whole stock market neither gains nor loses. Money just shifts hands from one person to another.

>Any probabilistic investment is gambling
You're confusing speculation and gambling. Gambling is just a flip of a coin while speculation implies a degree of knowledge. An investment would be where you have a reasonable assumption of profit and some guarantee for the preservation of your invested capital--such as a bond.

>With quantum computing around the corner, your bitcoin will be worthless in 10 years
Quantum computing provides probabilistic solutions, not deterministic solutions. Even if you factorize a large number, the trade for time is certainty. Deterministic computers take long but are 100% certain of their answer. Quantum computers take a short time (or can be cut off by the user), but give probabilistic solutions. To get a deterministic solution from a quantum computer, you need a long long time (annealing).

Bitcoin may fall, but it won't be due to quantum computers.

Don't dividends factor into this somewhere?

>I tried once, and I got +30% in a month. You have to be retarded.
Or maybe you got lucky and OP is more sane.

It's as immoral as buying a building, thus not immoral at all (under most circumstances).
When you're buying a stock you're buying a % of a company. If the company does good you get profit, if not you lose money. No such thing as interest or usury.

>Planning on holding them LT till at least 2021 when the EV market takes off.
You really think the electric vehicle market will take off? What are people going to use to produce the electricity that drives EVs after oil runs out?

Maybe usury is not the right word... free-riding maybe?
If you buy a building and turn around and sell exact same building for more isn't that immoral? You generated money from money alone... the extreme case would be to buy the building and rent it out, where the renter does not build equity... I feel this is immoral but have never seen an explanation to why I feel this way.

>Gambling is just a flip of a coin while speculation implies a degree of knowledge.
If I shuffle a deck of cards in front of superman, and ask him to bet on what the top card is, superman will win every time because his supersight lets him know what the card is on top of the deck.

Gambling is putting your money on a decision when you are not a 100% certain. Speculating is characterizing all possible outcomes.

Even if you have a degree of knowledge, you're not omniscient. For people who understand the market still lose money. Why? Because they can't characterize all possible scenarios, or they don't know which scenario will be realized. Just like a coin flip.

Having a degree of knowledge makes people comfortable with gambling. But only fools think that non-omniscient decisions are not gambling.

Providing finance to companies and liquidity to stock owners?

I know that’s a real screen shot, because my employer uses fidelity for their 401k and it looks very similar to my return year to date.

>If everyone gains 10% on their money, then who loses money in the stock market?
He's referring to unrealized profits. Everyone participating can have a paper profit simultaneously provided new money enters the market. The S&P rising $trillions in market cap since '08 doesn't mean other market participants have lost $trillions, but it does mean that $trillions have flowed out of the real economy to enter the speculative one.

>Gambling is putting your money on a decision when you are not a 100% certain
This is definitively not the case. Anyway, I'm not debating you, just informing you.

>the government should make the investments in promising markets.
>not the people
>also
>fault not being of:
>the federal reserve
>bailing out banks
Dont play the game then.

>Don't dividends factor into this somewhere?
So you're saying companies pay 10% in dividends forever? Does that make sense even to you?

>Everyone participating can have a paper profit simultaneously provided new money enters the market.
I get this. You need new money to enter the stock market to pay off others.

But when you normalize all factors (including new money entering the market and the investors that bring the new money), all participants in the stock market don't gain as a whole.
>The S&P rising $trillions in market cap since '08 doesn't mean other market participants have lost $trillions, but it does mean that $trillions have flowed out of the real economy to enter the speculative one.
Really? Are you accounting for the real value of money when you say this? No, you aren't. Just cause DOW and S&P are rising in points doesn't mean there's more "real" money in the stock market now then there was before. The stock market rises and falls. It's not some genie that keeps producing.

No... not 10% but some stocks pay dividends which is basically the company sharing some returns for your investment. This allows for some money generation other than your zero-sum view. Warranted this is not where most gains are made just stating a point.

>Gambling is putting your money on a decision when you are not a 100% certain
>This is definitively not the case.
What's gambling for you then?

>No... not 10% but some stocks pay dividends which is basically the company sharing some returns for your investment.
So now you're accounting for money that originates outside the stock market. - why do I say outside? because the company makes profit by selling goods and services and people in the economy pay for it. They then take this money and pay dividends.

I was referring strictly to the money that's within the stock market that comes due to trading of stocks.

But I'll still bite. Let's account for dividends. When you account for dividends, then you account for the economy's health. Does any economy always rise? No. The health of an economy is usually cyclic - it rises and falls. When things are good, companies make profit and pay their investors dividends. When things are bad companies don't pay their investors and the stock prices go down.

In the long run, everything evens out.

>all participants in the stock market don't gain as a whole.
After you consider stock buybacks and dividends, they do in aggregation.

>Are you accounting for the real value of money when you say this?
Yes, actually.

>Just cause DOW and S&P are rising in points doesn't mean there's more "real" money in the stock market now then there was before
But there un-debatably is. Inflation has been much, much less than market returns by leaps and bounds. We're talking total return differentials in excess of ~300% compared to inflation since '08.

>It's not some genie that keeps producing
The market will keep going up provided new money continues to enter the market. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about it.

My friend, your intuition is right that the stock markets are sick, but you have taken your torch to a little too much of its structure. If I loan Bobby $100 and he promises to pay me back $105 in a week, I'm making an assessment on this risk. A lot of the financial markets are supposed to bundle such risks so investors are not as much exposed, but there is still plenty of risk hidden under all the complicated security constructions. However, it is important to remember that risk analysis is not a matter of calculating probabilities, but pure statistics. There is no force in the universe that can define the probability that Bobby will give me back my money. The best we can do is figure out ways to classify people into Bobby's and other categories of risk, a profession that got leveraged into risk assessment. Somewhere under all the securities people are still evaluating loans to people, and stock is priced based on their return on investment, so revenue stream. People can still bid up the price of stock but if it goes too high eventually reality will kick back. There is one thing that breaks this system, and that is what I decide to do when Bobby doesn't pay up. Can I sell his bike? Can I be appointed financial guardian until he pays me back? Should the state bail out my loan by printing monopoly money? Every solution has financial ramifications. But of all the ways that an economy can be sick, at least one of the purposes of a stock market is to figure out which people deserve loans and at what price. Betting on a football match and investing in a company are different things, although both require you to make some sort of judgment call. The latter can be as in-depth as your knowledge of the markets and company, and actually *makes it come true by providing capital*. The latter is a game where only money is exchanged and nothing is produced, like Vegas.

So to summarize, the stock market is a pyramid scheme? If more people play the overall returns will always trend up?

>get out of this speculation market and go into this speculation market

You do know that Bitcoin has passed the bull trap phase, right?

LMAO!!!!!!!

CRYPTO LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>What's gambling then

Gambling is done essentially blind where the participant has no inkling of an outcome beyond simple odds (or even less information).

Speculation is when the participant has information which can directly infer a specific outcome may occur, but there lacks a guarantee of the event occurring.

Investment is when the participant has a reasonable expectation of profit and possesses some guarantee on their invested principal. While you're not immune to the possibility of loss, you have a reasonable expectation that you won't as secured by some guarantee.

I could see this being true for mutual funds that buy an index... but for individual stocks you front money so they can make improvements which in turn you expect payback with interest. If no ROI on their improvement then you get no returns.

Not understanding economy in 2018. You in grade school? A heads-up would be nice before some unlucky one requests your tits pic.

He's a business cycle Keynesian that seems to believe stock market money is isolated from the larger economy, which makes it "probabilistic gambling" to invest. If you believe your friend has a good thing going with his startup, buying his stock is not a probabilistic thing. You acquire this perspective from working with mathematical models and "diversified portfolios" for too long I think. The stock market is not a pyramid scheme, but you can build a bubble inside it which is.

>looks at flag
niggers

>After you consider stock buybacks and dividends, they do in aggregation.
Economies are cyclic. They rise and fall. In the short term do the participants gain in the stock market? Some of them, yes. In the long run do all the participants collectively gain? No.
>Yes, actually.
No, actually.
> Inflation has been much, much less than market returns by leaps and bounds.
What? Are you saying inflation is lower than market returns? Then why would people invest in the stock market, they would keep their money in the banks. Did you reverse the two?
>We're talking total return differentials in excess of ~300% compared to inflation since '08.
Define return differential (or are you talking about differential return).
>The market will keep going up provided new money continues to enter the market.
You know, it's funny how you say this. You don't even realize your statement is redundant. The market will go up if new money continues to enter the market? Yeah, everyone knows that. That's the definition of the market going up. Stock prices are rising because people are putting their money in the market. But how does this disprove my point? All you've said is that when people invest in the market, the market goes up. Are you confusing definitions with logic?

If this is gambling then poker is not gambling... you see your cards and bet on their comparative strength. Admitting its still based on odds but every decision is... I made the decision to brush my teeth which was gambling the odds that I won't get tooth decay.

Your definition only lends non gambling to scientific law of hard sciences, which does not include the stock market.

>My friend, your intuition is right that the stock markets are sick, but you have taken your torch to a little too much of its structure.
I'm not against the stock market. I believe it serves a purpose - to provide information on the health of the economy and it provides a platform for people to put their money in. All I'm saying is that the OP is right. It is gambling. No one in the stock market, including GS who invest billions of dollars in trades of 10cents are omniscient.

You have an excellent and well thought out example in the remaining part of your post. I will reply to it once I'm done reading and understanding it.

It's worth more than what now? Did you mention Oil? Are you on meds? Bitcoin is at least 2 orders of magnitude lower than oil. Use fucking transation vol for BTC and actual oil sold and traded for Oil. Traded oil is just a small part of oil.

wrong

Yeah, this holds true only if you buy the market... which is actually the best strategy atm while population and economies trend upward.

Outside of me knowing anything about startups that is...

I'm sorry but probabilities do not work that way. They require a model from which you can sample, and financial models are one and all statistical in nature. From the perspective of a big stock market player, all stock reduces more or less to a few variables, one of which is something people like to call 'risk'. But there is no such thing as risk, there is no mathematical way to make a judgment call like that. The only way you can try to capture it without understanding the stock itself (because who can understand his portfolio?) is to get the Central Limit Theorem on your side and diversify. The math quickly becomes quite complicated, but it doesn't remove the fundamental judgment call at the bottom of all this. Banks do this all the time, deciding who gets credit and who doesn't, but unfortunately government tends to intervene and things go tits up. Anyway regardless of the nature of finance, it is wrong to consider something like that probabilistic. Not even betting on a football game is probabilistic, although Vegas is because the games are designed to model a specific (mathematical) probability distribution. The thing that makes sports betting gambling is that there is no investment anywhere, only money is changing hands. But it is not probabilistic, and the mathematicians would agree.

After the IPO they can still issue more stocks later and it helps their market capitalization for credit.

It is true that buying existing stocks doesn't give a business money directly.

>If I loan Bobby $100 and he.....hidden under all the complicated security constructions.
I agree.
>However, it is important to remember that risk analysis is not a matter of calculating probabilities, but pure statistics.
I understand what you mean, but I teach OR for a living. Probability is the end result of statistics. A statistic is a function of the data at hand. Probabilities can be subjective or objective. If they objective, then they must be derived through a statistic of the data. But I get what you're trying to say.
>There is no force in the universe that can define the probability that Bobby will give me back my money. The best we can do is figure out ways to classify people into Bobby's and other categories of risk, a profession that got leveraged into risk assessment.
Yes. I agree.
>People can still bid up the price of stock but if it goes too high eventually reality will kick back.
Ok.
>There is one thing that breaks this system, and that is what I decide to do when Bobby doesn't pay up. Can I sell his bike? Can I be appointed financial guardian until he pays me back? Should the state bail out my loan by printing monopoly money? Every solution has financial ramifications. But of all the ways that an economy can be sick, at least one of the purposes of a stock market is to figure out which people deserve loans and at what price.
I believe that stock markets are a source of information, so I won't disagree with you. But surely there are easier ways to figure this out than using the stock market.
>Betting on a football match and investing in a company are different things, although both require you to make some sort of judgment call.
Yes, football is football, companies are companies. I'm not arguing on the differences in stocks a cards in a poker game. I'm saying the underlying concept is the same. It's gambling because no one has all the information about the entire universe, and thus no one can be 100% certain of their decision.

>The latter can be as in-depth as your knowledge of the markets and company, and actually *makes it come true by providing capital*.
Right. I wasn't clear with this earlier, but in one of my replies, I did say that the IPO has a purpose of providing capital to companies. But after the IPO, it's just money changing hands in the stock market for any stock.

>It's gambling because no one has all the information about the entire universe, and thus no one can be 100% certain of their decision.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You can't be 100% of anything you do, not even surviving crossing the street or not choking on your sandwhich. This definition is senselessly broad and makes any spending into gambling. Before you said it was gambling because there were probabilities involved, but this simply isn't true. Probabilities are mathematical, they are not real. Incomplete knowledge does not mean no knowledge, so you can know better whether to loan to your friend than a random person does. You can write down "Bobby probably only has a 50% chance to pay me back% but this is just something you do in your accounting, and something large numbers of (bad) credit bundle buyers speculate on.

>So to summarize, the stock market is a pyramid scheme?
No. It's a closed system where money changes hands. It's like a poker game. Everyone brings their money to the table, and the money changes hands based on luck and decisions.
Even if you account for the fact that new participants enter the stock market, it doesn't make it a pyramid scheme. It's still a poker game - combination of luck and decisions.
> If more people play the overall returns will always trend up?
Overall returns will trend up for whom?

Thats right goyim, put your mo ey i to the stock and exchange and you will be a 6 gorillionare in no time.

>it's just money changing hands in the stock market for any stock.
You see it this way because you believe there is a giant wall between 'all' and 'some' information. Even when people trade existing stock, the prices at which they do so signal expected future earnings. There is still risk assessment buried under all the complicated market mechanisms. What does it mean when everyone tries to sell their stock? Well it means something, that's for sure, and if it's not a bubble popping then there is something wrong with the company. But anyway you probably know all this so we're stuck on the definition of probabilities and gambling. I'm a mathematician too btw, and I wouldn't say that
>Probability is the end result of statistics.
There really is such a thing as probabilities, but they are mathematical. If you build a model and it says "% chance of default", then you still can not call it a probability because you could have constructed your model from some Krugman books and shoestring.

>Gambling is done essentially blind where the participant has no inkling of an outcome beyond simple odds (or even less information).
>Speculation is when the participant has information which can directly infer a specific outcome may occur, but there lacks a guarantee of the event occurring.

You and I are just disagreeing on definitions at this stage. You're saying gambling is where the participant has little or no information, whereas speculation is where the participant has information but no guarantee of outcomes.

I don't see a difference between the two in terms of outcomes - in both cases there's no guarantee.

However, if you're saying speculation is more nuanced gambling (or not gambling) where a participant extracts as much information as possible before making a decision, then that's fine with me. I won't disagree with you.

I see no difference because no one is omniscient, but it's fine. I don't think what you're saying is wrong based on your definitions.

>In the long run do all the participants collectively gain?
It's a pretty basic concept. $1t in the market old money + $1t new money enters, doubling the market cap (1t+1t=2t). Businesses then pour $1t into stock buybacks and dividends but don't reinvest, enriching investors by that $1t (2t+1t=3t). All investors pull all their money of out of the market, draining $2t from the market (3t-2t=1t). Investors still benefit--in aggregation--from the $1t in value leftover that they made from the buybacks/dividends.

>Are you saying inflation is lower than market returns?
It unbeatably is. This is empirical reality.

>Then why would people invest in the stock market
Well gee, I would hazard a guess that they believe the markets will continue to rise? Basic stuff.

>Define return differential
>what is total return
>what is the difference between the total return on a security and inflation
As if you couldn't make it more obvious you're not into finance, business, or economics.

>Yeah, everyone knows that
Except you, apparently. You're so caught up in your own stupidity that you're thinking you didn't say the exact opposite. Your bewilderment at the notion the market has empirically risen much faster than inflation is a testament to that.

>He's a business cycle Keynesian
I'm not a Keynesian, but ok. You're not wrong in assuming that from what I've said.
>that seems to believe stock market money is isolated from the larger economy, which makes it "probabilistic gambling" to invest.
True. Most of my comments were based on analyzing the stock market after isolating it. I don't think much would change even if you include the wider economy. I would still consider it gambling.

Perhaps gambling has a negative connotation on Sup Forums. I'm ok with gamblers, but perhaps I shouldn't use that word.
>If you believe your friend has a good thing going with his startup, buying his stock is not a probabilistic thing.
Are you saying there's no chance your friend might fail and will certainly succeed? That's not true, and even you know it. Besides, as you may have figured out from my other comments, I agree that IPOs provide capital. I'm not denying that.

>there's no chance
I have a dream that one day this will be engraved above the door of every statistical finance department in the land.

>If this is gambling then poker is not gambling
That depends, does the player know enough about the odds of winning a hand to make probabilistic bets? Maybe a professional does, and in which case he's still speculating. Does aunt Susan who's just having a fun night out with the 'gals' at Vegas? Probably not.

>I'm sorry but probabilities do not work that way.
Ok, go ahead. I'll bite.
> They require a model from which you can sample, and financial models are one and all statistical in nature.
Ok. All probabilities are either subjective or objective. If they are objective, then they must come from data. Ok. I agree so far.
>From the perspective of a big stock market player, all stock reduces more or less to a few variables, one of which is something people like to call 'risk'.
Let's simplify what you said here. Risk has three definitions in the industry
1) The possibility of being exposed to an adverse outcome
2) The probability of being exposed to an adverse outcome
3) The expected loss (loss * probability of loss) in case of an adverse outcome.
>But there is no such thing as risk, there is no mathematical way to make a judgment call like that.
I think you're trying to say that you cannot objectively quantify risk. There are tons of mathematical ways to quantify risk. Objectively doing it for the stock market is difficult due to various parameters that cannot be measured accurately - that is, without the use of proxies (for example: consumer confidence)

But your point only proves what I said. If there is no way to quantify risk, then it is gambling.
>The only way you can try to capture it without understanding the stock itself (because who can understand his portfolio?) is to get the Central Limit Theorem on your side and diversify.
You pulled this out of your ass. You most probably didn't expect me to know what Central Limit Theorem is.
I understand what you're trying to say. You're saying in the long run, the attribute of (of a stock) of interest has a normal distribution because of CLT. But your comment on diversification was totally out of place. You diversify to minimize risk. But you have previously rejected the idea that risk can be mathematically quantified.

>I don't see a difference between the two in terms of outcomes
The idea of "investing" in stocks is a very modern one. Historically, it's always been considered speculation and by definition, it is.

Here's the difference between the speculator in stocks and the gambler: The speculator knows the ins and outs of the business which they've purchased stock in, and while they have no guarantee that the business will perform as the speculator expects or that the stock will also perform, the speculator infers from his knowledge about the business that it will continue to see revenue and earnings growth which should see him a tidy profit.

On the other hand, the gambler may as well throw a dart at a list of company names. The gambler is just as likely to land on a shitty company as a good one.

Stock market is a way of financing enterprise that's an alternative to banks. Once the banks removed the strict division between pure investment banks and regular ones it all became meaningless, since banks became the main stock buyers anyway (removing any alternative) and contribute greatly to speculation.
Stock market is a great idea, but the banking jew hates competition, so he turned it into a tool to scam people of their money.

>Anyway regardless of the nature of finance, it is wrong to consider something like that probabilistic.
What is probability for you? This seems to be going like my discussion with the other user who had different definitions than me.
>Not even betting on a football game is probabilistic,
Are you saying it's deterministic? This is true only if the game is fixed and you're in on the fixing.
>But it is not probabilistic, and the mathematicians would agree.
I'm a mathematician and I don't agree with what you're saying.

>After the IPO they can still issue more stocks later and it helps their market capitalization for credit.
I don't disagree. But I know you get what I'm saying.
>It is true that buying existing stocks doesn't give a business money directly.
True. It's just money changing hands.