5 ms·

Anyone publish a study about the harmms of legalised stock trading (day traders), currency traders, auction hunters, real estate speculators, collectables, cryp

Anyone publish a study about the harmms of legalised stock trading (day traders), currency traders, auction hunters, real estate speculators, collectables, crypto hoarders etc you get the point. The only difference is time between sessions, wager amount and tangibles. The next revolution in gambling will add some ownership element, akin to bitcoin.

cyberax 2y ago
There is a difference, though. Stock trading is a non-zero-sum game, investment can result in an overall economic growth. Betting is _literally_ a zero-sum game that doesn't provide any economic benefits.
- titanomachy 2y ago
  Amazing you had to point this out. Some people are so used to thinking of the stock market as a gambling platform that we forget it serves an actual purpose, and is probably one of the primary drivers of our society’s prosperity. That said, I’ve worked in consumer trading, and almost all of the profit margin comes from customers engaging in gambling-like behavior (e.g. crypto and options day trading). It’s a big reason I don’t work in that space any more.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >that we forget it serves an actual purpose, and is probably one of the primary drivers of our society’s prosperity. We chose to give our fate of "prosperity" to monopoly money and we wonder why people became lonelier, more depressed, and hopeless in life. When services cease to serve society and instead this speculation for people well off enough to participate, it should be no surprise Goodheart's law is minmaxed towards enshittification over quality. Shittier but higher engagement algorithms, price hikes on a whim, ads everywhere on your screen real estate, paywalls for essential news. And subscriptions for things that have no business being a subscription. So many subscriptions. I could go on all day. And ofc the final optimization of this phenomenon is reducing costs on the mode expensive part of a business: labor. Automate it away or become a US shell company when 95+% operates in a 3rd world country paying well below US minimum wage. That's exactly what society needs, less reasons to get out of bed. But if it made a few dozen billionaires even richer, I guess that's all that matters in the end.
    - titanomachy 2y ago
      I’ve traveled a bit and it’s pretty clear that the US has extremely high material prosperity. It’s not universally distributed but it is widely distributed. It’s not purely smoke and mirrors and creative accounting. Certainly there are things that matter more in life than material prosperity, and there are many alienating things about western society.
- sameoldtune 2y ago
  Less than zero, really
- smallstepforman 2y ago
  Money spent transferring share(s) ownership doesn’t impact the companies cash flow unless it’s new shares emmision (eg if I buy issued coca cola shares, only the broker gets spendable cash). Regarding gambling being a zero sum game, someone has to design, manufacture, service, install and operate the machines. Lots of employement building those machines. And taxes earned operating them. You do know that approx 5% of state revenues come from gaming activities.
jkaptur 2y ago
Matt Levine had an interesting point/counterpoint here: > There are a lot of ways to put your money into the stock market; some of them feel mostly like “fun gambling,” while others feel like “boring sensible investment of retirement savings in the long-term growth of the economy.” A lot of retail brokerage accounts will let you do both. If you are young, carefree and confident, and don’t have very much money, you might gravitate toward the gambling stuff. And then later, as you get more money and responsibility and grow up a bit, you will get more curious about buy-and-hold investing in low-cost index funds. > And you can do both of those things — and transition between them — in the same brokerage account. This is good! Arguably it is socially useful for brokerage apps be competitive with, say, sports gambling apps, to be as fun and easy-to-use and exciting and risky as sports gambling. Because investing is competing with sports gambling for young, risk-seeking people’s attention. But the brokerage app is better positioned to transition those people into boring responsible investing. There is no analogous transition in sports gambling. Here is a recent paper finding that sports betting “does not displace other gambling or consumption but significantly reduces savings, as risky bets crowd out positive expected value investments.” Zero-day options are, arguably, a bit better than that. > Again you cannot get too carried away with this theory. Is it socially beneficial to introduce riskier and zanier financial products to retail brokerages? Well, if the zanier products lure customers away from sports betting, and start them on a road to mature sensible investing, then yes. If the zanier products lure customers away from index funds, and start them on a road away from sensible investing, then no. I’m not sure there’s an a priori answer.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I'd still argue it's all gambling, even though there are many safe and boring bets. We can't guarantee Gold won't be obsolete in 40 years or thst we find some insane vein or synthesis process that deflates the value. We can't guarantee we hit some depression right when you want to cash out. Leaving your money to banks with the hopes you end up on top is pretty much gambling no matter what. Even if it's safer than most traditional gambling.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
ironhaven 2y ago
Sports betting is bad because it is gambling and not productive. Stock trading is good because it supports creating value like new sports gambling companies.

cyberax 2y ago

There is a difference, though. Stock trading is a non-zero-sum game, investment can result in an overall economic growth. Betting is _literally_ a zero-sum game that doesn't provide any economic benefits.

titanomachy 2y ago
Amazing you had to point this out. Some people are so used to thinking of the stock market as a gambling platform that we forget it serves an actual purpose, and is probably one of the primary drivers of our society’s prosperity. That said, I’ve worked in consumer trading, and almost all of the profit margin comes from customers engaging in gambling-like behavior (e.g. crypto and options day trading). It’s a big reason I don’t work in that space any more.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >that we forget it serves an actual purpose, and is probably one of the primary drivers of our society’s prosperity. We chose to give our fate of "prosperity" to monopoly money and we wonder why people became lonelier, more depressed, and hopeless in life. When services cease to serve society and instead this speculation for people well off enough to participate, it should be no surprise Goodheart's law is minmaxed towards enshittification over quality. Shittier but higher engagement algorithms, price hikes on a whim, ads everywhere on your screen real estate, paywalls for essential news. And subscriptions for things that have no business being a subscription. So many subscriptions. I could go on all day. And ofc the final optimization of this phenomenon is reducing costs on the mode expensive part of a business: labor. Automate it away or become a US shell company when 95+% operates in a 3rd world country paying well below US minimum wage. That's exactly what society needs, less reasons to get out of bed. But if it made a few dozen billionaires even richer, I guess that's all that matters in the end.
  - titanomachy 2y ago
    I’ve traveled a bit and it’s pretty clear that the US has extremely high material prosperity. It’s not universally distributed but it is widely distributed. It’s not purely smoke and mirrors and creative accounting. Certainly there are things that matter more in life than material prosperity, and there are many alienating things about western society.
sameoldtune 2y ago
Less than zero, really
smallstepforman 2y ago
Money spent transferring share(s) ownership doesn’t impact the companies cash flow unless it’s new shares emmision (eg if I buy issued coca cola shares, only the broker gets spendable cash). Regarding gambling being a zero sum game, someone has to design, manufacture, service, install and operate the machines. Lots of employement building those machines. And taxes earned operating them. You do know that approx 5% of state revenues come from gaming activities.

jkaptur 2y ago

Matt Levine had an interesting point/counterpoint here: > There are a lot of ways to put your money into the stock market; some of them feel mostly like “fun gambling,” while others feel like “boring sensible investment of retirement savings in the long-term growth of the economy.” A lot of retail brokerage accounts will let you do both. If you are young, carefree and confident, and don’t have very much money, you might gravitate toward the gambling stuff. And then later, as you get more money and responsibility and grow up a bit, you will get more curious about buy-and-hold investing in low-cost index funds. > And you can do both of those things — and transition between them — in the same brokerage account. This is good! Arguably it is socially useful for brokerage apps be competitive with, say, sports gambling apps, to be as fun and easy-to-use and exciting and risky as sports gambling. Because investing is competing with sports gambling for young, risk-seeking people’s attention. But the brokerage app is better positioned to transition those people into boring responsible investing. There is no analogous transition in sports gambling. Here is a recent paper finding that sports betting “does not displace other gambling or consumption but significantly reduces savings, as risky bets crowd out positive expected value investments.” Zero-day options are, arguably, a bit better than that. > Again you cannot get too carried away with this theory. Is it socially beneficial to introduce riskier and zanier financial products to retail brokerages? Well, if the zanier products lure customers away from sports betting, and start them on a road to mature sensible investing, then yes. If the zanier products lure customers away from index funds, and start them on a road away from sensible investing, then no. I’m not sure there’s an a priori answer.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
I'd still argue it's all gambling, even though there are many safe and boring bets. We can't guarantee Gold won't be obsolete in 40 years or thst we find some insane vein or synthesis process that deflates the value. We can't guarantee we hit some depression right when you want to cash out. Leaving your money to banks with the hopes you end up on top is pretty much gambling no matter what. Even if it's safer than most traditional gambling.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago

ironhaven 2y ago

Sports betting is bad because it is gambling and not productive. Stock trading is good because it supports creating value like new sports gambling companies.