4 ms·

Not really. The question is are you working for your money or are you hoping the money will provide free rent for you. If the latter, you're gambling. The only

Not really. The question is are you working for your money or are you hoping the money will provide free rent for you. If the latter, you're gambling. The only reason it's relatively risk free is because the system has been thoroughly stitched up in favour of the rent seekers.

Dylan16807 2mo ago
I'm confused by the ideas you're combining here. Do you think all forms of rent-seeking are gambling or just ones that involve money in a direct way? The only risk in a bank deposit is up at the "societal collapse" level. Are you really so extreme as to say that's gambling, and if so isn't having money at all a form of gambling?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- hgomersall 2mo ago
  The point is largely around expectation. Sure, the base case of putting money in a bank is very safe, but the interest on that is not. Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits. If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. Sticking money in the bank with the hope that it's still there next time you come back to it is not really gambling. You're just doing the default thing.
  - Dylan16807 2mo ago
    > Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits. But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling. > expectation, intent I understand your argument here, but I disagree. Shifting to the bank that offers the best rate is good management, not gambling. Understanding how interest works and being motivated by interest to do bog-standard money storage doesn't turn that storage into gambling. > without doing anything else I don't understand how this connects at all. Maybe it reflects badly on you if you want to turn money into free income, but that doesn't make it any more or less of a gamble. It's a totally different axis.
    - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
      >But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling. It is, because there's no choice not to gamble. You have to make choices, and none of those choices are risk-free. The options are on a scale between low-risk negative-return and high-risk high-return. But the risk is never zero - not even in FDIC insured accounts - and there's an element of randomness involved in the outcomes. That's the point. There's no option to say "I have this store of value, and if I don't do anything with it it will retain its value forever." It won't. So you're forced into risk assessment and randomness, not just with money but with assets in general. This is the foundation of the economy. All non-trivial transactions are based on risk/reward estimates, and some parts of the economy can force risk and hazard on others. It's not just a casino you can never leave, it's a casino where the management use various tricks to siphon money from your assets into their pockets without giving you any agency over what happens.
      - StilesCrisis 2mo ago
        Government-backed bonds are the intended zero-risk option. You know exactly how much you will get and it is designed to track inflation (sorta). If you don't believe in that, precious metals are another way to go. I don't personally subscribe to that theory but that's the idea.
        skinfaxi 2mo ago
        I think your parent's point is even larger than that. To be alive is to engage with risk. There are no stores of value that withstand all decay.
        Dylan16807 2mo ago
        If everything is gambling then we lost track of what we were doing and need a new word for what we're trying to regulate. The answer is not to give up because it's a spectrum, it's to mark off thresholds.
      - danielmarkbruce 2mo ago
  - gloryjulio 2mo ago
    > If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. There are lot of value investors which sit at home do stock picking occasionally. They don't work for their money. I don't think they are gambling. The only investors that fits your non gambling definition seems to be the active investors who take part in the companies. But most investors don't
    - hgomersall 2mo ago
      Why don't you think they are gambling?
      - gloryjulio 2mo ago
        Because investing conservatively is not gambling. Your definition of gambling is weirdly associated of how money is made, instead of risk making. Nobody uses this word in this way. Gambling is about of risk. It's not about how you are making the money For example, it's also possible to be actively taking part in the money making activity while taking unnecessary risk. A person can run his own company but recklessly making bets on the loan or spending decisions. So this is the other side of the story where they are gambling and they are actively working with their money.
        hgomersall 2mo ago
        That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable.
        gloryjulio 2mo ago
        > That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. It's about risk adjusted returns, not higher returns. If you are not considering the risk assessment you are objectively wrong. Take my previous example, how is actively working with you money by taking higher risk less gambling, than passively investing for example an all weather portfolio which is designed to preserve the capital? An all weather portfolio is firstly proposed by Ray Dalio to be as conservative as possible to hedge against all kind of risks while hopefully get some gain. > Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable. That's objectively wrong. For example lots of etf is designed to reduce risk by diversifying the investment. Just take your own just put money in the bank example. Suppose you do not live in stable country US/EU, and your country is having high inflation. How is just putting money in the bank with your country's depreciating currency less risky than let's say you invest in a global portfolio or an all weather portfolio? In this case, by not managing your risk profile, you are taking more risk. I am only giving out 1 example to show that `Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher` is objectively wrong. It's actually the opposite if you look into how portfolio managing works. Majority of the funds managed for the Sovereign state or the rich are about hedging against the risks, it's the opposite of gambling.
  - danielmarkbruce 2mo ago
    That fact it's the default thing isn't the issue. Putting money in the bank is not gambling because you have the underlying risk no matter what. Just holding cash has risks. Any time you try to take some value today and turn it into value tomorrow, you have risks. Gambling is creating risks for their own sake.
the_other 2mo ago
> Not really. The question is are you working for your money or are you hoping the money will provide free rent for you. If the latter, you're gambling. So putting money in my savings account is gambling, but investing in businesses is not. I suspect I misunderstand your point completely.
- Dylan16807 2mo ago
  They're saying that investing is your neighbor's business is gambling but starting your own business with the money isn't. But if it's the same risk I don't see why.

Dylan16807 2mo ago

I'm confused by the ideas you're combining here. Do you think all forms of rent-seeking are gambling or just ones that involve money in a direct way? The only risk in a bank deposit is up at the "societal collapse" level. Are you really so extreme as to say that's gambling, and if so isn't having money at all a form of gambling?

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
hgomersall 2mo ago
The point is largely around expectation. Sure, the base case of putting money in a bank is very safe, but the interest on that is not. Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits. If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. Sticking money in the bank with the hope that it's still there next time you come back to it is not really gambling. You're just doing the default thing.
- Dylan16807 2mo ago
  > Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits. But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling. > expectation, intent I understand your argument here, but I disagree. Shifting to the bank that offers the best rate is good management, not gambling. Understanding how interest works and being motivated by interest to do bog-standard money storage doesn't turn that storage into gambling. > without doing anything else I don't understand how this connects at all. Maybe it reflects badly on you if you want to turn money into free income, but that doesn't make it any more or less of a gamble. It's a totally different axis.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
    >But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling. It is, because there's no choice not to gamble. You have to make choices, and none of those choices are risk-free. The options are on a scale between low-risk negative-return and high-risk high-return. But the risk is never zero - not even in FDIC insured accounts - and there's an element of randomness involved in the outcomes. That's the point. There's no option to say "I have this store of value, and if I don't do anything with it it will retain its value forever." It won't. So you're forced into risk assessment and randomness, not just with money but with assets in general. This is the foundation of the economy. All non-trivial transactions are based on risk/reward estimates, and some parts of the economy can force risk and hazard on others. It's not just a casino you can never leave, it's a casino where the management use various tricks to siphon money from your assets into their pockets without giving you any agency over what happens.
    - StilesCrisis 2mo ago
      Government-backed bonds are the intended zero-risk option. You know exactly how much you will get and it is designed to track inflation (sorta). If you don't believe in that, precious metals are another way to go. I don't personally subscribe to that theory but that's the idea.
      - skinfaxi 2mo ago
        I think your parent's point is even larger than that. To be alive is to engage with risk. There are no stores of value that withstand all decay.
        Dylan16807 2mo ago
        If everything is gambling then we lost track of what we were doing and need a new word for what we're trying to regulate. The answer is not to give up because it's a spectrum, it's to mark off thresholds.
    - danielmarkbruce 2mo ago
- gloryjulio 2mo ago
  > If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling. There are lot of value investors which sit at home do stock picking occasionally. They don't work for their money. I don't think they are gambling. The only investors that fits your non gambling definition seems to be the active investors who take part in the companies. But most investors don't
  - hgomersall 2mo ago
    Why don't you think they are gambling?
    - gloryjulio 2mo ago
      Because investing conservatively is not gambling. Your definition of gambling is weirdly associated of how money is made, instead of risk making. Nobody uses this word in this way. Gambling is about of risk. It's not about how you are making the money For example, it's also possible to be actively taking part in the money making activity while taking unnecessary risk. A person can run his own company but recklessly making bets on the loan or spending decisions. So this is the other side of the story where they are gambling and they are actively working with their money.
      - hgomersall 2mo ago
        That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable.
        gloryjulio 2mo ago
        > That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. It's about risk adjusted returns, not higher returns. If you are not considering the risk assessment you are objectively wrong. Take my previous example, how is actively working with you money by taking higher risk less gambling, than passively investing for example an all weather portfolio which is designed to preserve the capital? An all weather portfolio is firstly proposed by Ray Dalio to be as conservative as possible to hedge against all kind of risks while hopefully get some gain. > Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable. That's objectively wrong. For example lots of etf is designed to reduce risk by diversifying the investment. Just take your own just put money in the bank example. Suppose you do not live in stable country US/EU, and your country is having high inflation. How is just putting money in the bank with your country's depreciating currency less risky than let's say you invest in a global portfolio or an all weather portfolio? In this case, by not managing your risk profile, you are taking more risk. I am only giving out 1 example to show that `Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher` is objectively wrong. It's actually the opposite if you look into how portfolio managing works. Majority of the funds managed for the Sovereign state or the rich are about hedging against the risks, it's the opposite of gambling.
- danielmarkbruce 2mo ago
  That fact it's the default thing isn't the issue. Putting money in the bank is not gambling because you have the underlying risk no matter what. Just holding cash has risks. Any time you try to take some value today and turn it into value tomorrow, you have risks. Gambling is creating risks for their own sake.

the_other 2mo ago

> Not really. The question is are you working for your money or are you hoping the money will provide free rent for you. If the latter, you're gambling. So putting money in my savings account is gambling, but investing in businesses is not. I suspect I misunderstand your point completely.

Dylan16807 2mo ago
They're saying that investing is your neighbor's business is gambling but starting your own business with the money isn't. But if it's the same risk I don't see why.