3 ms·
in your example you left out the person that paid for the lemonade. they lost. i think in an idealistic value system, all value is exchanged not created, a lot
by etherealG 13y ago
in your example you left out the person that paid for the lemonade. they lost. i think in an idealistic value system, all value is exchanged not created, a lot like energy in physics. not that i'm saying that's a good model for economics, but it's a valid high level thought, and one i think the original poster might have in mind.
- crististm 13y agoI'm with you here; but in our world we get a free lunch from the Sun.
- arbitrage 13y agoThe buyer didn't lose. They got lemonade, which is what they wanted. Everyone wins here.
- larsonf 13y agoI think you are hitting this exactly right. I mean, people 'lose' money all the time for things they get pleasure for. And Even when the thing they gained is very abstract. Like vegas. People lose money almost by definition. Or basketball games. Normal people get a -100% return on basketball games. And no one writes articles how the Grizzlies are somehow not providing value to society. It's the same with capital markets. A lot of people get a huge kick out of speculating on the future. Even if they lose. The capital markets, no matter whether you are an HFT firm in Shoreditch, PIMCO, or some retail investor, are more a game than anything. Everybody wins. No, it's a tragedy when we start saying that people need to rely on the capital markets. Then, sure, there is loss that's not like basketball games or lemonade. It's a horrible, tragic loss. But then you are talking about policy, not speculation. The real question is why on earth do people rely on the capital markets in the first place? Why is this 'loss' different?
- stonemetal 13y agoIf they can get lemonade cheaper then yes they lost. In this instance there would have been no stand if not for the investor. Chemically speaking the investor is the catalyst that make the whole reaction possible.