4 ms·
In practice, it may not be possible to neatly classify any particular financial decision as being purely investment or purely speculation. This only increases t
by philipov 9y ago
In practice, it may not be possible to neatly classify any particular financial decision as being purely investment or purely speculation. This only increases the need to have these words mean clearly different things so that we may use them to analyze the different aspects of the ambiguous world in which we find ourselves. Blurring the meaning of the words effectively robs people of the ability to reason about their circumstances, and it is no wonder that many people feel invested in creating such confusion.
- brucephillips 9y agoThe impossibility of separating the two concepts necessitates two different words for those concepts? That's a contradiction.
- philipov 9y agoThe concepts are easy to separate: Investment is symbiotic, Speculation is parasitic. Having clear concepts is more important when the real-world examples are complicated.
- brucephillips 9y agoHow is speculation parasitic?
- philipov 9y agoSpeculators seek to extract alpha without regard to the overall health of the instrument. Shorting is just as good as going long, so far as you make a profit.
- brucephillips 9y agoThat doesn't mean they're parasitic. To show they're parasitic, you'd have to describe how they hurt the company. Regardless, what defines speculation is not parasitism, it's uncertainty. And there's uncertainty in any investment as well. That's why there's no clear line between the two.
- philipov 9y agoI disagree. I have made a clear delineation in the semantic content of my definitions, while you continue to attempt to confuse the issue.
- brucephillips 9y agoI mean, the definitions aren't yours to make. These words exist in the dictionary.
- philipov 9y agoWriters of dictionaries are archaeologists of language. They do not prescribe the meaning of words like a programmer or mathematician. Their definitions are posterior to language. The definitions are in fact mine to make, provided they result in successful communication with people who have adopted similar definitions. Go read my original post again. I am advocating against ambiguity in language, as this serves to obscure analysis. You are clearly happy to obliterate distinction, however, and have made no attempt at a positive argument why it is beneficial to discourse. Language is a constant negotiation about the meaning of words, and I have made my position clear.
- brucephillips 9y agoI'll bow out here, but I'll just point out that this is a great example of how one's adherence to their ideas makes rational conversation impossible. We can only communicate to the extent that we agree on the definitions of words, so for you to invent your own definitions, which contradict how other people use the word, as codified in dictionaries, then there's zero hope of reaching shared understanding. It would be absurd for me to claim that "the sky is brown", the later argue that I was right all along because I'm defining "brown" to be "blue".
- philipov 9y agoI will simply point out that at every opportunity, I have been upfront about what definitions I am adopting and the distinctions I am attempting to make, while you have done nothing but dissemble and create ambiguity, without offering a positive program of your own. I will leave it up to other readers to make their own conclusions.
- zodiac 9y agoWould you say that all short selling is parasitic?
- mythrwy 9y agoSpeculation isn't necessarily parasitic at all. For example it can function in assuming risk.