4 ms·

Man this site is harsh some times, I think there is a lot of depth to this question. It’s easy to look at statistics and say that it’s because of massive wealth

Man this site is harsh some times, I think there is a lot of depth to this question. It’s easy to look at statistics and say that it’s because of massive wealth imbalances and that is 100% an accurate statement. But from experience / polling there’s also a ton of people who have bad financial hygiene, people who could & should be way more invested and aren’t. So I think there’s also very big educational issues at play / wealth imbalance glosses over a lot of smaller but still important issues.

kazen44 6y ago
Also, what if people don't want to be part of the very system which causes wealth inbalance? or is the stockmarket a "the only way to lose is not to play" kind of deal?
- awinder 6y ago
  The not being a part of a system bit is tricky. One of the more exciting emergent trends in finance imo is ESG etfs which pick stocks based on good environmental, social and corporate governance criteria. So there is already this idea that capital should have organization patterns for people who value this & I hope that iterates in really positive ways. But yeah I’d trend towards “the only way to lose is not to play” side of things. It’s really hard to find other ways to efficiently save/grow your money, interest rates are crushed for saving money outside of the market.
  - kazen44 6y ago
    the sad part about "the only way to lose is not to play", is that playing in this case further entrenches the very system which requires you to effectively play in the first place. There is very little, if even any way to recourse this without massive societal change. And getting such change in action is even harder.
    - chii 6y ago
      > There is very little, if even any way to recourse this without massive societal change. And getting such change in action is even harder. getting water to flow up hill is massively hard. And in the foreseeable future, not possible. Until the day humanity discovers unlimited energy and move into a post scarcity society. So play the game as much and as well as you can, and build up wealth for your family and future family. That's the only move left, unless you want to sacrifice yourself and your family's financial well-being for a cause that you nor your children will benefit from.
  - bluquark 6y ago
    I'm a lot more cynical about the trend. ESG funds serve the sell-side's desire to charge higher expense ratios and the buy-side's desire to feel clean and ethical. It's much less clear that they have had any positive impact on corporations' behavior (or even stock prices). The "G" is also there mostly because it's the only thing that can be quantified across every company. For that reason it dominates the sampling, even though most values-driven investors care much more about the E and S.
- loblollyboy 6y ago
  You can do what I did and lose 5% of your net worth on wallstreetbets
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kazen44 6y ago

Also, what if people don't want to be part of the very system which causes wealth inbalance? or is the stockmarket a "the only way to lose is not to play" kind of deal?

awinder 6y ago
The not being a part of a system bit is tricky. One of the more exciting emergent trends in finance imo is ESG etfs which pick stocks based on good environmental, social and corporate governance criteria. So there is already this idea that capital should have organization patterns for people who value this & I hope that iterates in really positive ways. But yeah I’d trend towards “the only way to lose is not to play” side of things. It’s really hard to find other ways to efficiently save/grow your money, interest rates are crushed for saving money outside of the market.
- kazen44 6y ago
  the sad part about "the only way to lose is not to play", is that playing in this case further entrenches the very system which requires you to effectively play in the first place. There is very little, if even any way to recourse this without massive societal change. And getting such change in action is even harder.
  - chii 6y ago
    > There is very little, if even any way to recourse this without massive societal change. And getting such change in action is even harder. getting water to flow up hill is massively hard. And in the foreseeable future, not possible. Until the day humanity discovers unlimited energy and move into a post scarcity society. So play the game as much and as well as you can, and build up wealth for your family and future family. That's the only move left, unless you want to sacrifice yourself and your family's financial well-being for a cause that you nor your children will benefit from.
- bluquark 6y ago
  I'm a lot more cynical about the trend. ESG funds serve the sell-side's desire to charge higher expense ratios and the buy-side's desire to feel clean and ethical. It's much less clear that they have had any positive impact on corporations' behavior (or even stock prices). The "G" is also there mostly because it's the only thing that can be quantified across every company. For that reason it dominates the sampling, even though most values-driven investors care much more about the E and S.
loblollyboy 6y ago
You can do what I did and lose 5% of your net worth on wallstreetbets

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]