5 ms·

America is great. Online gambling is illegal but you can have an app to punt the market all day. Options might as well be roulette for most people.

KorematsuFred 6y ago
> Online gambling is illegal but you can have an app to punt the market all day That is an argument for making Online gambling legal. (I fully support it).
- mhh__ 6y ago
  In the UK we are overrun by online gambling to the point where parliament may legislate - it's a complete cancer. Online gambling is fine in principle, but it needs regulation to avoid overly predatory practices. FWIW I'd rather people shoved some money in the stock market (but not options) than on (say) the football - most bad stocks do better than the ridiculous compound bets advertised here.
benglish11 6y ago
Online gambling has been getting more and more legal throughout the US. Sports betting online has been mostly legalized as well as some online "games" depending on the state.
outworlder 6y ago
> America is great. Online gambling is illegal but you can have an app to punt the market all day Not all day. If you have less than 25k you are subject to pattern day trading restrictions. I guess, if you have money, anything goes.
- sl1ck731 6y ago
  Isn't that only with non-cash accounts?
  - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
    Yes PDT restrictions only apply to margin accounts.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    Indeed. But now you need to wait for the cash to settle, which takes about two days.
    - quickthrowman 6y ago
      Options trades settle the following day, not +2 like shares.
      - outworlder 6y ago
        TIL Thanks!
siavosh 6y ago
One of those two things helps keep the world order from collapsing.
- gruez 6y ago
  Exactly. It's not a conscious policy decision by government, but a corollary of: * Stock markets should be allowed because they allow for efficient allocation of capital, allowing for economic growth * Access to stock markets should be available for all, for as cheaply as possible so everyone can reap the gains
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    the stock market itself is the result of a conscious policy decision because it's a tightly regulated legal fiction, not some random thing that plopped out of thin air. Trading securities is subject to countless of regulations, which is what makes it attractive to investors in the first place. So, the fact that stock market allocates capital efficiently is true in a broad sense but says nothing about how participation or regulation ought to look. The second statement also is too vague. Stock returns should arguably be available to all, but activities like day-trading almost exclusively produce losers. Pretty much the only reliable way for the average Joe to make money on stocks is to passively invest, which again means this does nothing to justify the existence of Robinhood's model. Distributing the returns of stocks and design of the market are orthogonal issues, or if anything justify more restrictions. If you want equitable distribution of stock returns you put everyone's money into a sovereign wealth fund that invests into some index fund and send everybody a check at the end of the year
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Stock returns should arguably be available to all, but activities like day-trading almost exclusively produce losers. Pretty much the only reliable way for the average Joe to make money on stocks is to passively invest, which again means this does nothing to justify the existence of Robinhood's model. I mean, the "optimal" way to invest is to buy a passively managed index fund and don't touch it until you retire, but how much of that should be baked into the regulation? Should we make the stock market off limits to the average joe except the most optimal choice? >If you want equitable distribution of stock returns you put everyone's money into a sovereign wealth fund that invests into some index fund and send everybody a check at the end of the year So... the SSA? The other problem I can see is that in a country that's distrustful of the government, citizens might be reluctant to hand their retirement plans to the government. After all, the fund can be raided by politicians for short term spending or otherwise mismanaged, causing adjustments to be made to the payout structure (eg. cutting benefits, or forcing people to retire later).

KorematsuFred 6y ago

> Online gambling is illegal but you can have an app to punt the market all day That is an argument for making Online gambling legal. (I fully support it).

mhh__ 6y ago
In the UK we are overrun by online gambling to the point where parliament may legislate - it's a complete cancer. Online gambling is fine in principle, but it needs regulation to avoid overly predatory practices. FWIW I'd rather people shoved some money in the stock market (but not options) than on (say) the football - most bad stocks do better than the ridiculous compound bets advertised here.

benglish11 6y ago

Online gambling has been getting more and more legal throughout the US. Sports betting online has been mostly legalized as well as some online "games" depending on the state.

outworlder 6y ago

> America is great. Online gambling is illegal but you can have an app to punt the market all day Not all day. If you have less than 25k you are subject to pattern day trading restrictions. I guess, if you have money, anything goes.

sl1ck731 6y ago
Isn't that only with non-cash accounts?
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Yes PDT restrictions only apply to margin accounts.
- outworlder 6y ago
  Indeed. But now you need to wait for the cash to settle, which takes about two days.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    Options trades settle the following day, not +2 like shares.
    - outworlder 6y ago
      TIL Thanks!

siavosh 6y ago

One of those two things helps keep the world order from collapsing.

gruez 6y ago
Exactly. It's not a conscious policy decision by government, but a corollary of: * Stock markets should be allowed because they allow for efficient allocation of capital, allowing for economic growth * Access to stock markets should be available for all, for as cheaply as possible so everyone can reap the gains
- Barrin92 6y ago
  the stock market itself is the result of a conscious policy decision because it's a tightly regulated legal fiction, not some random thing that plopped out of thin air. Trading securities is subject to countless of regulations, which is what makes it attractive to investors in the first place. So, the fact that stock market allocates capital efficiently is true in a broad sense but says nothing about how participation or regulation ought to look. The second statement also is too vague. Stock returns should arguably be available to all, but activities like day-trading almost exclusively produce losers. Pretty much the only reliable way for the average Joe to make money on stocks is to passively invest, which again means this does nothing to justify the existence of Robinhood's model. Distributing the returns of stocks and design of the market are orthogonal issues, or if anything justify more restrictions. If you want equitable distribution of stock returns you put everyone's money into a sovereign wealth fund that invests into some index fund and send everybody a check at the end of the year
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Stock returns should arguably be available to all, but activities like day-trading almost exclusively produce losers. Pretty much the only reliable way for the average Joe to make money on stocks is to passively invest, which again means this does nothing to justify the existence of Robinhood's model. I mean, the "optimal" way to invest is to buy a passively managed index fund and don't touch it until you retire, but how much of that should be baked into the regulation? Should we make the stock market off limits to the average joe except the most optimal choice? >If you want equitable distribution of stock returns you put everyone's money into a sovereign wealth fund that invests into some index fund and send everybody a check at the end of the year So... the SSA? The other problem I can see is that in a country that's distrustful of the government, citizens might be reluctant to hand their retirement plans to the government. After all, the fund can be raided by politicians for short term spending or otherwise mismanaged, causing adjustments to be made to the payout structure (eg. cutting benefits, or forcing people to retire later).