4 ms·

By this logic would you also consider trading OIL (USO) and Palantir a "obscene" market.

by nodesocket 6mo ago

foxes 6mo ago
Yes
micromacrofoot 6mo ago
objectively so
tomtomtom777 6mo ago
Actually yes. I put my money in things I would like to see shape the future, which I think is what investment should be about: shaping the future. But disregarding this admittedly niche attitude; it's not the same thing. If you're opening bets on the ships being bombed before a certain date, you're opening incentives for people to do so. Although buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives.
- nodesocket 6mo ago
  Shaping the future for “good” is not investing. That is ESG and if you value capital and capital appreciation ESG has been proven not to be a solid strategy. See also altruistic capitalism with such moral people as Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, Trevor Milton and Adam Neumann. Solid list of moral people shaping the future.
  - sharmajai 6mo ago
    Who said investing is _only_ for "capital and capital appreciation"? It can also be for social good.
  - tomtomtom777 6mo ago
    Wow. I am not sure how to respond to this as you seem to have a completely different mindset. You mean to say it is "proven" not to be a solid strategy as in not maximizing profit? Surely, you acknowledge that funding something is a rather direct way of actively supporting it. It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. If you buy OIL to make money, you are still responsible for the additional investment made in oil, and are still shaping the future, whether you like it or not.
    - Invictus0 6mo ago
      The ticker is USO, not OIL, and it's abundantly clear that you have no idea how it works.
      - tomtomtom777 6mo ago
        I am responding to someone that used OIL presumably because it is - although incorrect - more clear as an example for those that are not into trading.
    - nodesocket 6mo ago
      > It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. Absolutely, but I believe you are conflating investing vs donating. The literal definition of investing is: > Allocating money (or capital) with the expectation of generating a return or profit over time.
      - tomtomtom777 6mo ago
        The fact that is used to make profit doesn't absolve us from any moral judgement. Buying stocks of a company improves its financial position allowing it to grow. Would you buy stocks of ClusterBombsInc over CureForCancerInc because it has slightly better prospects?
    - DwnVoteHoneyPot 6mo ago
      No, you're wrong. Oil producers produce oil... Consumers consume oil. In between the producers and the consumers, it doesn't matter whether or not trader A sells a barrel of oil to B, then B sells to C, and C sells it someone else. All of the A to B to C is net zero. All of the money comes from consumers. The money may change hands 100 times in between, but the money from consumers goes to producers. If you purchase any products which included petroleum in your life, whether it's a house, car (EV or not), or stretchy clothes, that is what funds the oil producers. That where the money goes into the system, including to investors as return.
- trhway 6mo ago
  >you're opening incentives for people to do so how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing? I'd even argue that sinking one ship affects say 10 people of the crew who most probable will survive in the warm Gulf waters whereis sinking a company may affect many people life outcomes probably causing a number of indirect deaths. CDS of 2008 would be similar example. >buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives it creates direct incentives to suppress competitors - wind and solar energy for OIL, and whoever Palantir competitors are. Wrt. "Hormuz open" - does the "open" definition includes the new fee Iran would be taking for the strait traverse (something like $1/barrel, nice for Iran, how come that they had't implemented such an idea before? one can only wonder)
  - tomtomtom777 6mo ago
    > how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing? Yes. That's why it's illegal to short-sell your stocks just before you announce that your company is broke. There are no such regulations when betting on a bomb dropping on a boat.
  - herewulf 6mo ago
    > $1/barrel, nice for Iran, how come that they had't implemented such an idea before? one can only wonder Probably someone would have bombed their country of they had done that before. That and the reverse are pretty basic assumptions..
mvdtnz 6mo ago
Oil futures or any other commodity purchase that doesn't result in the buyer taking actual physical ownership of what they purchase is an obscene gambling market with perverse incentives yes correct.
- isubkhankulov 6mo ago
  How will commodity producers (oil companies, farmers) hedge their risk / stabilize their prices without speculators and their “perverse incentives”?
  - DaedalusII 6mo ago
    [flagged]
  - broken-kebab 6mo ago
    We will gather special people, very wise, and completely honest. They'll form a committee, and we will call it Gosplan, comrade!
- DaedalusII 6mo ago
  by this logic investing in SAFEs is obscene gambling with perverse incentives and we should shut down the venture capital industry
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Octoth0rpe 6mo ago
Yep
antonvs 6mo ago
Why would you not? Unless you literally don't care about damaging our planet and civilization in the interests of your own personal profit.
- colechristensen 6mo ago
  At this point efficient pricing of energy is a strong motivator for environmental causes. Solar is ridiculously cheaper than fossil fuels and not subject to geopolitical risk. And once you have solar panels you've got energy for decades. Carbon-related environmentalism and greed now go hand in hand.
auntienomen 6mo ago
The problem with prediction markets is fundamentally that they're unregulated. Modern equities and futures markets are highly evolved and rather carefully regulated systems. We've spent centuries learning what the failure modes are and how to guard against them. It's never perfect, it's never going to be perfect -- it's fundamentally a voting system -- but in general, we get liquidity and price discovery at a relatively low cost, while avoiding fraudulent and evil behavior like wash trading and criminal profit laundering. These new "prediction markets" have been put in place without any of those hard-earned protections. And surprise, they're rife with dirty trick and dirty money.
- nodesocket 6mo ago
  Agree 100% that prediction markets are the wild-wild-west with no insider trading protections, pump and dump, and no oversight. It’s perverting the wisdom of the crowd and efficient market thesis.
  - watwut 6mo ago
    >It’s perverting the wisdom of the crowd and efficient market thesis. I mean, looking at futures and stocks now, I dont believe in those anymore anyway.
    - nodesocket 6mo ago
      typical HN comment when it comes to finance and the stock market. Over and over again the wisdom of the HN crowd is wrong in regards to stocks. Intel at its bottom (they are done, and doomed, listening to main stream media) perfect time to buy and load up. This has occurred over and over again in my 15 years being on HN, almost always they call a bottom.
      - watwut 6mo ago
        Have you seen what they do every time half sleeping Trump farts another truth social post?

By this logic would you also consider trading OIL (USO) and Palantir a "obscene" market.

foxes 6mo ago

Yes

micromacrofoot 6mo ago

objectively so

tomtomtom777 6mo ago

Actually yes. I put my money in things I would like to see shape the future, which I think is what investment should be about: shaping the future. But disregarding this admittedly niche attitude; it's not the same thing. If you're opening bets on the ships being bombed before a certain date, you're opening incentives for people to do so. Although buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives.

nodesocket 6mo ago
Shaping the future for “good” is not investing. That is ESG and if you value capital and capital appreciation ESG has been proven not to be a solid strategy. See also altruistic capitalism with such moral people as Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, Trevor Milton and Adam Neumann. Solid list of moral people shaping the future.
- sharmajai 6mo ago
  Who said investing is _only_ for "capital and capital appreciation"? It can also be for social good.
- tomtomtom777 6mo ago
  Wow. I am not sure how to respond to this as you seem to have a completely different mindset. You mean to say it is "proven" not to be a solid strategy as in not maximizing profit? Surely, you acknowledge that funding something is a rather direct way of actively supporting it. It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. If you buy OIL to make money, you are still responsible for the additional investment made in oil, and are still shaping the future, whether you like it or not.
  - Invictus0 6mo ago
    The ticker is USO, not OIL, and it's abundantly clear that you have no idea how it works.
    - tomtomtom777 6mo ago
      I am responding to someone that used OIL presumably because it is - although incorrect - more clear as an example for those that are not into trading.
  - nodesocket 6mo ago
    > It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. Absolutely, but I believe you are conflating investing vs donating. The literal definition of investing is: > Allocating money (or capital) with the expectation of generating a return or profit over time.
    - tomtomtom777 6mo ago
      The fact that is used to make profit doesn't absolve us from any moral judgement. Buying stocks of a company improves its financial position allowing it to grow. Would you buy stocks of ClusterBombsInc over CureForCancerInc because it has slightly better prospects?
  - DwnVoteHoneyPot 6mo ago
    No, you're wrong. Oil producers produce oil... Consumers consume oil. In between the producers and the consumers, it doesn't matter whether or not trader A sells a barrel of oil to B, then B sells to C, and C sells it someone else. All of the A to B to C is net zero. All of the money comes from consumers. The money may change hands 100 times in between, but the money from consumers goes to producers. If you purchase any products which included petroleum in your life, whether it's a house, car (EV or not), or stretchy clothes, that is what funds the oil producers. That where the money goes into the system, including to investors as return.
trhway 6mo ago
>you're opening incentives for people to do so how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing? I'd even argue that sinking one ship affects say 10 people of the crew who most probable will survive in the warm Gulf waters whereis sinking a company may affect many people life outcomes probably causing a number of indirect deaths. CDS of 2008 would be similar example. >buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives it creates direct incentives to suppress competitors - wind and solar energy for OIL, and whoever Palantir competitors are. Wrt. "Hormuz open" - does the "open" definition includes the new fee Iran would be taking for the strait traverse (something like $1/barrel, nice for Iran, how come that they had't implemented such an idea before? one can only wonder)
- tomtomtom777 6mo ago
  > how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing? Yes. That's why it's illegal to short-sell your stocks just before you announce that your company is broke. There are no such regulations when betting on a bomb dropping on a boat.
- herewulf 6mo ago
  > $1/barrel, nice for Iran, how come that they had't implemented such an idea before? one can only wonder Probably someone would have bombed their country of they had done that before. That and the reverse are pretty basic assumptions..

mvdtnz 6mo ago

Oil futures or any other commodity purchase that doesn't result in the buyer taking actual physical ownership of what they purchase is an obscene gambling market with perverse incentives yes correct.

isubkhankulov 6mo ago
How will commodity producers (oil companies, farmers) hedge their risk / stabilize their prices without speculators and their “perverse incentives”?
- DaedalusII 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- broken-kebab 6mo ago
  We will gather special people, very wise, and completely honest. They'll form a committee, and we will call it Gosplan, comrade!
DaedalusII 6mo ago
by this logic investing in SAFEs is obscene gambling with perverse incentives and we should shut down the venture capital industry

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

Octoth0rpe 6mo ago

Yep

antonvs 6mo ago

Why would you not? Unless you literally don't care about damaging our planet and civilization in the interests of your own personal profit.

colechristensen 6mo ago
At this point efficient pricing of energy is a strong motivator for environmental causes. Solar is ridiculously cheaper than fossil fuels and not subject to geopolitical risk. And once you have solar panels you've got energy for decades. Carbon-related environmentalism and greed now go hand in hand.

auntienomen 6mo ago

The problem with prediction markets is fundamentally that they're unregulated. Modern equities and futures markets are highly evolved and rather carefully regulated systems. We've spent centuries learning what the failure modes are and how to guard against them. It's never perfect, it's never going to be perfect -- it's fundamentally a voting system -- but in general, we get liquidity and price discovery at a relatively low cost, while avoiding fraudulent and evil behavior like wash trading and criminal profit laundering. These new "prediction markets" have been put in place without any of those hard-earned protections. And surprise, they're rife with dirty trick and dirty money.

nodesocket 6mo ago
Agree 100% that prediction markets are the wild-wild-west with no insider trading protections, pump and dump, and no oversight. It’s perverting the wisdom of the crowd and efficient market thesis.
- watwut 6mo ago
  >It’s perverting the wisdom of the crowd and efficient market thesis. I mean, looking at futures and stocks now, I dont believe in those anymore anyway.
  - nodesocket 6mo ago
    typical HN comment when it comes to finance and the stock market. Over and over again the wisdom of the HN crowd is wrong in regards to stocks. Intel at its bottom (they are done, and doomed, listening to main stream media) perfect time to buy and load up. This has occurred over and over again in my 15 years being on HN, almost always they call a bottom.
    - watwut 6mo ago
      Have you seen what they do every time half sleeping Trump farts another truth social post?