3 ms·

The only way to not gamble wealth is not to have it. Leaving cash in the bank is gambling that government won't inflate it away. Buying equities is gambling t

The only way to not gamble wealth is not to have it. Leaving cash in the bank is gambling that government won't inflate it away. Buying equities is gambling that market conditions won't change. Buying bonds is gambling that the returns will outpace inflation and that the bond seller won't default.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> only way to not gamble wealth is not to have it This is a false analogy between taking measured risks and gambling. Putting 100% of your assets into anything, particularly a cryptocurrency, is gambling.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Putting 100% of your assets into one thing is bad gambling. Putting your assets into diversified, positive-sum assets is good gambling. I can play semantic games too :)
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Putting your assets into diversified, positive-sum assets is good gambling. I can play semantic games too Semantics means arguing over definitions, not misunderstanding them. The difference between positive- and zero-sum systems is unambiguous. We can call participating in the latter, whether by trading cryptocurrencies or derivatives or playing slots, with an intent to profit gambling or wijiwogging or blurlippening, it doesn't matter, the expected outcome is the same.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >Semantics means arguing over definitions, not misunderstanding them. Ah the semantics of semantics. If two people disagree on a definition, then there will be some belief that the counterparty "misunderstands" the definition. That goes hand in hand. >The difference between positive- and zero-sum systems is unambiguous. And uncontested. >We can call participating in the latter, whether by trading cryptocurrencies or derivatives or playing slots, with an intent to profit gambling Yes we can. We can also call a well diversified portfolio of 'positive-sum' investments gambling. You are risking your money on the chance you'll have a favorable outcome. There is no riskless portfolio. You are forced to gamble if you keep your wealth, because there is always an element of chance regarding maintaining your wealth. The default, uninvested state, for most is to gamble inflation won't eat it away.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > can also call a well diversified portfolio of 'positive-sum' investments gambling We can call it whatever we like. It's still positive sum. (That's the point of the part of the quote you omitted.) Crypto and slot machines are not positive sum. That is a fundamental difference that separates them from investing. > is no riskless portfolio Straw man [1]. Nobody claimed this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
        notch656a 4y ago
        Again, semantics: 'Investments' are not required to be made on 'positive-sum' underlying assets. For instance, airlines may make an investment in oil futures (a zero sum contract) to hedge expenses that correlate with their fuel costs. >Crypto and slot machines are not positive sum. I think this the part where I link to a wikipedia page of a fallacy I don't understand/doesn't apply? /s
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> only way to not gamble wealth is not to have it This is a false analogy between taking measured risks and gambling. Putting 100% of your assets into anything, particularly a cryptocurrency, is gambling.

notch656a 4y ago
Putting 100% of your assets into one thing is bad gambling. Putting your assets into diversified, positive-sum assets is good gambling. I can play semantic games too :)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Putting your assets into diversified, positive-sum assets is good gambling. I can play semantic games too Semantics means arguing over definitions, not misunderstanding them. The difference between positive- and zero-sum systems is unambiguous. We can call participating in the latter, whether by trading cryptocurrencies or derivatives or playing slots, with an intent to profit gambling or wijiwogging or blurlippening, it doesn't matter, the expected outcome is the same.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >Semantics means arguing over definitions, not misunderstanding them. Ah the semantics of semantics. If two people disagree on a definition, then there will be some belief that the counterparty "misunderstands" the definition. That goes hand in hand. >The difference between positive- and zero-sum systems is unambiguous. And uncontested. >We can call participating in the latter, whether by trading cryptocurrencies or derivatives or playing slots, with an intent to profit gambling Yes we can. We can also call a well diversified portfolio of 'positive-sum' investments gambling. You are risking your money on the chance you'll have a favorable outcome. There is no riskless portfolio. You are forced to gamble if you keep your wealth, because there is always an element of chance regarding maintaining your wealth. The default, uninvested state, for most is to gamble inflation won't eat it away.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > can also call a well diversified portfolio of 'positive-sum' investments gambling We can call it whatever we like. It's still positive sum. (That's the point of the part of the quote you omitted.) Crypto and slot machines are not positive sum. That is a fundamental difference that separates them from investing. > is no riskless portfolio Straw man [1]. Nobody claimed this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Again, semantics: 'Investments' are not required to be made on 'positive-sum' underlying assets. For instance, airlines may make an investment in oil futures (a zero sum contract) to hedge expenses that correlate with their fuel costs. >Crypto and slot machines are not positive sum. I think this the part where I link to a wikipedia page of a fallacy I don't understand/doesn't apply? /s
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]