5 ms·

> The stock market has never done anything for me. I mean, it could, if you were to invest. > Shareholders making money out of my work is not exactly in my in

> The stock market has never done anything for me. I mean, it could, if you were to invest. > Shareholders making money out of my work is not exactly in my interests, nor is it in the interest of the majority of the world’s workers. So instead of, say, encouraging people to learn how to invest, and maybe even incentivizing firms to allocate shares to their employees, you'd rather just have the whole stock market burn to the ground?

runarberg 6y ago
Statistically, in a zero sum game, where all players are equally skilled and the winner of each transaction is determined at random. The more transaction made, the more the wealth accumulates. What this means is, that unless you are already one of the richest person on the stock markets, your most likely outcome is that you will loose money by participating. So—unless you are already rich—your optimal strategy is not to participate in the stock markets.
- kinghajj 6y ago
  The stock market--just like the economy--is not a zero-sum game. I don't know what to tell you. The S&P500 over the long term has consistently performed quite well, for many decades. Maybe if your picture of participating in the stock market involves day trading, sure, statistically the majority of people who try will break even or come out with a loss. But that's not what financial advisers recommend average people do! You should be doing a daily cost average by setting aside a small portion of your income to invest, ideally in a tax-advantaged IRA (or 401k if your employer offers one.)
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Thank you, but I prefer a savings account at my local credit union. I’m sure the interests will amount to something similar as what some random hedgefund manager can conjure by gaming the market. If not, then I can live with it, knowing that what little interest I earned, at least it wasn’t earned by taking profits out of other workers. And in the best case scenario my savings got lent out to other members of my credit union that used it to buy homes or start businesses in my community.
    - collinvandyck76 6y ago
      With all due respect, savings accounts can barely keep up with inflation, if at all. The last couple of years it was not uncommon to have 15%+ gains with a diversified portfolio.
    - thekyle 6y ago
      At today's interest rates it seems like you're probably going to lose a lot of money to inflation. At the very least why not buy government bonds? Alternatively based on your posts it seems like maybe you would like investing in a ESG fund. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-criteria.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-an...
    - p1necone 6y ago
      You're going to have to explain how buying shares === workers earning less because I don't follow.
    - city41 6y ago
      A simple index fund will outperform interest earned from a savings account by quite a bit.
  - recursive 6y ago
    Is there any particular reason to believe that financial advisors' advice for average people is in their best interest? (The average people that is)
throwaway-571 6y ago
Robinhood was founded on that idea, but it turns out it's kinda hard to deliver. When people where trying to invest into this rising stock they ran out of credit at their clearinghouse and had to stop their customers from trading.
- marvin 6y ago
  The real problem is that the stock market has historically delivered 7-9% on average, and consensus is it will likely be considerably lower in the future. Making significant money from an ownership share like that takes decades of disciplined saving and investing. The narrative of WSB that "the rich won't let poor people invest in the stock market like they do" is ridiculous; most of the rich would be very happy with 8% per year on average. There might be something to the idea that an internet forum will have a harder time getting away with the sort of market manipulation that the most unscrupulous hedge funds do all the time, but that's a different discussion entirely. There's of course a related discussion of how much some people can afford to invest in the stock market each year, but it's really only partially related. I do understand where the anger is coming from, as should everyone who has been following American politics since 2015 at the latest.

runarberg 6y ago

Statistically, in a zero sum game, where all players are equally skilled and the winner of each transaction is determined at random. The more transaction made, the more the wealth accumulates. What this means is, that unless you are already one of the richest person on the stock markets, your most likely outcome is that you will loose money by participating. So—unless you are already rich—your optimal strategy is not to participate in the stock markets.

kinghajj 6y ago
The stock market--just like the economy--is not a zero-sum game. I don't know what to tell you. The S&P500 over the long term has consistently performed quite well, for many decades. Maybe if your picture of participating in the stock market involves day trading, sure, statistically the majority of people who try will break even or come out with a loss. But that's not what financial advisers recommend average people do! You should be doing a daily cost average by setting aside a small portion of your income to invest, ideally in a tax-advantaged IRA (or 401k if your employer offers one.)
- runarberg 6y ago
  Thank you, but I prefer a savings account at my local credit union. I’m sure the interests will amount to something similar as what some random hedgefund manager can conjure by gaming the market. If not, then I can live with it, knowing that what little interest I earned, at least it wasn’t earned by taking profits out of other workers. And in the best case scenario my savings got lent out to other members of my credit union that used it to buy homes or start businesses in my community.
  - collinvandyck76 6y ago
    With all due respect, savings accounts can barely keep up with inflation, if at all. The last couple of years it was not uncommon to have 15%+ gains with a diversified portfolio.
  - thekyle 6y ago
    At today's interest rates it seems like you're probably going to lose a lot of money to inflation. At the very least why not buy government bonds? Alternatively based on your posts it seems like maybe you would like investing in a ESG fund. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-criteria.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-an...
  - p1necone 6y ago
    You're going to have to explain how buying shares === workers earning less because I don't follow.
  - city41 6y ago
    A simple index fund will outperform interest earned from a savings account by quite a bit.
- recursive 6y ago
  Is there any particular reason to believe that financial advisors' advice for average people is in their best interest? (The average people that is)

throwaway-571 6y ago

Robinhood was founded on that idea, but it turns out it's kinda hard to deliver. When people where trying to invest into this rising stock they ran out of credit at their clearinghouse and had to stop their customers from trading.

marvin 6y ago
The real problem is that the stock market has historically delivered 7-9% on average, and consensus is it will likely be considerably lower in the future. Making significant money from an ownership share like that takes decades of disciplined saving and investing. The narrative of WSB that "the rich won't let poor people invest in the stock market like they do" is ridiculous; most of the rich would be very happy with 8% per year on average. There might be something to the idea that an internet forum will have a harder time getting away with the sort of market manipulation that the most unscrupulous hedge funds do all the time, but that's a different discussion entirely. There's of course a related discussion of how much some people can afford to invest in the stock market each year, but it's really only partially related. I do understand where the anger is coming from, as should everyone who has been following American politics since 2015 at the latest.