|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
>there is a limited amount of coin in the world, all that happens is that it
changes hands. Which is the definition of a zero-sum game.
That's a fundamentally flawed definition of "coin". Corporate debt is,
like country debt, a form of value. The question is--is that value backed by
adequate productivity?
If no, then the value of the money decreases--a negative-sum game for everyone.
If there is more than adequate productivity, the value increases--a positive-sum
game for everyone involved.
The stock markets (and currency exchanges) are just people trying to get out of
the negative-sum games and into the positive-sum games. The markets themselves
are inefficient and fraud-ridden (that is, negative-sum). But are they MORE
negative-sum than NOT having the option of getting out of other games?
It's a kind of insurance, like medical insurance, or homeowner's insurance--or
social security. Inefficient, yes. Fraud-ridden, yes squared. But at its best it
hurts everyone, except the people who are being devastated by something else.
The question is [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
No, the stock market increases in value as the overall value
of the companies increases (they produce products).
Unfortunately, it also increases/decreases due to emotion -
which gives stock bubbles and stock busts. For those who
invest for the long term, and have a broad range of stocks,
it's a positive sum game. For those who actively trade,
it's a zero-sum, and a negative sum when you account for
brokerage fees.
The quickest way to end up with a small fortune day trading
is to start with a large fortune.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
