It's sorta up for debate. My understanding, which is tiny and very limited, is that you can think of the role of finance operators as "liquidity providers". Th

It's sorta up for debate. My understanding, which is tiny and very limited, is that you can think of the role of finance operators as "liquidity providers". They're the grease in the wheels of capitalism; by either providing access to capital (via loans, or investment) or by matching buyers with sellers. A classical example is you're a farmer that wants to hedge the risk that your crop will fail due to random weather events or that there will be such a glut in the market that you won't be able to sell your crop profitably. So, you enter a contract to sell your crop at a fixed rate long before harvest comes along. That's a future contract, and it's a kind of derivative. So, derivatives can be really socially useful instruments. They can act like certain kinds of insurance, or allow you to capture different dimensions of value on assets that you already own. However, and here's where the argument comes in, it's not clear that all kinds of derivatives provide socially useful forms of gambling. The prime example here is that of the collateralized debt obligation in which huge portions of the US mortgage market got sunk into. Mortgage backed securities are probably not in of themselves terrible ideas but the way CDOs were structured made it impossible to objectively value the risk behind the instrument. It's just not clear how a dip in the market might affect the value of your CDO tranche. It's actually an np-complete problem - https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/intractability-financial-derivatives/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/intractability-fina... Another example is high frequency trading - where you're a day trader on steroids and have computers exchanging massive quantities of stocks based on fluctuations of fractions of cents. HFT people will argue that they provide more liquidity in the market - it's easier to sell your stocks because HF traders increase the overall volume, etc. However, it's in effect launched an arms race between different trading firms and some people say that they're literally making money by skimming off everyone else who trades stocks. There's a very reasonable argument that we don't want markets to operate faster than human perception. If you have to make a decision about selling something, placing a ground foor and minimum transaction time of say half a second isn't going to harm anyone who needs that liquidity for their business, or anything else that touches the "real economy". To summarize: certain kinds of financial instruments seem to provide no value above and beyond letting well-connected actors to place (potentially ridiculous) bets. Using your money, one way or another - whether it's your farm, the mortgage on your house, or your pension fund. -- If we accept the above as true, we can go further on a limb and ask questions about why is the wealth that passes through financial markets so liberally redistributed to people in the industry? Some people talk about it being a function of volume, but individuals are rarely if ever liable. When do they stop providing a service, and when do they start skimming off the top?