What is gambling compared to the stock market

[TENYEARS]

What is gambling compared to the stock market or selling something which has value less than the sum of it's expense? All profit beyond your expenditure is the same. Do you understand? There is no good, no bad on the balance. I herd a song on the radio the other day, it was a childrens song from the lion king, "Circle of life" listen to it.

The reason you do what you all do what we all do is because not that you don't believe in God, but because you don't believe in physics. You already believe in God. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I know you better than you know yourselves.

 

[russ_watters]

Stock trading certanly is a gamble. So is insurance. Think about it: with your car insurance, you're betting a hundred bucks a month that you will have a car accident. So if you want to win your bet, just drive your car into a tree!

 

[Monique]

Think about it: with your car insurance, you're betting a hundred bucks a month that you will have a car accident.

lol, that's a good way to put it

 

[Evo]

What is gambling compared to the stock market

Huge difference, in gambling you are depending mostly on a random occurence (roll of the dice, getting certain cards, etc...) When you invest in the stock market, unless you are an idiot, you do a lot of research into the company you plan to invest in, you don't invest unless you see potential for increased profit. The decision is knowledge driven.

or selling something which has value less than the sum of it's expense?

Sometimes you would rather have some money as opposed to none and be willing to sell something at a loss.

All profit beyond your expenditure is the same. Do you understand? There is no good, no bad on the balance. I herd a song on the radio the other day, it was a childrens song from the lion king, "Circle of life" listen to it.

So what's your point?

The reason you do what you all do what we all do is because not that you don't believe in God, but because you don't believe in physics. You already believe in God. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I know you better than you know yourselves.

Utter nonsense.

 

[TENYEARS]

As humans we look to gain, maybe as animals maybe not. If I gain in the stock market, someone must lose. If I gain by selling a book, someone must also lose. If I gain by selling my car someone must also lose. Do you not understand? In order to gain, beyond the value of your expended energy you must take from someone or something else. This is what causes the worlds pain, this is what causes the worlds imbalance. If any of you do not understand, life will one day make you understand. I hope that day comes a little at a time and not all at once for you. In the direction we head it is much like the bay of fundy.

 

[shmoe]

As humans we look to gain, maybe as animals maybe not. If I gain in the stock market, someone must lose. If I gain by selling a book, someone must also lose. If I gain by selling my car someone must also lose. Do you not understand?

I disagree with this. If I have a book that I never intend to read again, I will gain if I sell it cheaply (or give it away-this is a gain in shelf space). The person receiving the book will presumably value the book at least as much as the money (if any) exchanged, so they gain too. There are exchanges where both parties win.

 

[TENYEARS]

This is not the type of exchange of which I mean and if you think of my words you may understand their context. To find life in that which was used and find other life for it is good. For all things have a value beyond our ideas. When we realize this life begins to have balance, responsiblility happens, a circle is born. Only in this frame of mind will humanity be able to continue.

 

[Evo]

If I gain in the stock market, someone must lose. If I gain by selling a book, someone must also lose.

Not necessarily. I go into the bookstore to buy a specific book. While I am there I see your book and decide to buy it also. Who lost? I bought the book I went there for, so the author gained, so did the publisher, I also bought your book, you gained, so did the publisher, the bookstore gained even more because I bought two books instead of one. I gained because I now have two books I am interested in.

If I gain by selling my car someone must also lose.

Wrong again. This can be a win for everyone. The person that buys your car might have a particular reason for buying that particular car and otherwise not bought a car. So, no one lost an opportunity to sell him a car. No one else wanted your car, so no one lost the opportunity to buy it.

In order to gain, beyond the value of your expended energy you must take from someone or something else.

Wrong, this isn't necessarily true, there can be gains without a negative impact on anything else. Things aren't as cut and dried as you make them out to be.

This is what causes the worlds pain, this is what causes the worlds imbalance.

Since your example could not prove the effect you mentioned, I don't see the validity in your statement.

You're always so depressed, try to look at the positive side of things once in a while.

 

[TENYEARS]

The song of the drummer boy, until you live it you will not understand myself or the truth neither are a requirements for life until life requires them for you.

 

[Gokul43201]

Perhaps this thread belongs in the Debunking forum ?

 

[pace]

What about the philosophy forum. Maybe he could explain it better there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Huge difference, in gambling you are depending mostly on a random occurence (roll of the dice, getting certain cards, etc...) When you invest in the stock market, unless you are an idiot, you do a lot of research into the company you plan to invest in, you don't invest unless you see potential for increased profit. The decision is knowledge driven.

I don't agree. Just recently there was a discussion about this [I think on PBS] with an investment analyst who stated that historically, stocks are a bad investment. He cited numbers related to life savings lost by retired people, investment cycles, recessions and the depression, and I don't remember all of the details but his point seemed well made at the time. I'll look around later for a link.

Another example that comes to mind is something that was done every year for many years - the monkey picks. In New York, every year somebody [maybe the NY Times] had a monkey throw darts at a dartboard to select stock picks. The next year these were compared to stocks recommended by one of the top investment companies. The monkey often won; which may explain why I haven't seen it for a long time. This fact was quite famous when I was a kid.

Recently there was an economic model that threatened to offer solid predictors that could be used to determine stock selections. It looked really good until the dotcom crash. I guess the model completely failed when the market turned. [This may have been on the same show where I saw the stock analyst mentioned above].

 

[Evo]

I don't agree. Just recently there was a discussion about this [I think on PBS] with an investment analyst who stated that historically, stocks are a bad investment. He cited numbers related to life savings lost by retired people, investment cycles, recessions and the depression, and I don't remember all of the details but his point seemed well made at the time. I'll look around later for a link.

Ah, but I didn't say stocks were a good investment or that there was no risk. What I was pointing out was the difference between pure gambling (tossing dice for example) or making an informed decision on what to invest in.

Where most people that dabble in the stock market go wrong is that they dabble. They don't know what they are doing, so in essence they are gambling. To make money, or at least avoid losing everything, you must do a lot of studying about the company you are interested in, the competition, their track record, personal information about the company's executives, research on new products or technology in other sectors that could produce something that could destroy the market for this company in the future. You must read everything constantly that is going on to get a feel for where things are headed and know when to bail out. Or trust a stockbroker who's job it is to do all of this. You must diversify your portfolio, which is an even greater strain to keep abreast of what is happening.

I used to date a commodities broker in Chicago. He made millions. But he had to keep his ear to the ground on every seemingly insignificant event worldwide and try to "make the connections" including weather trends, knowing what climate conditions today will trigger insect swarms in some tiny part of Africa next year which mean that a certain crop in Kansas will be more valuable two years from now.

Playing blackjack or poker is nothing like the stockmarket, commodities or futures. Sure it's a risk, so is buying a house or car or getting a dog that destroys everything you own.

 

[TENYEARS]

I can make money at anything I wish I do not because it is a hollow prospect. I was 13 when I understood this. To make money from the blood of others is this a good thing? If I can make money from the market others must lose or Earth must suffer from the expansion of humanity to support the pyramid game. If you will not look I cannot show it to you and if you look I don't have to show it you for you can see for yourself.

I find this quite scarry that none of you see this. This is an obvious point and all humans have infinite potential ability so please think this over. All of you.

 

[Evo]

I can make money at anything I wish I do not because it is a hollow prospect. I was 13 when I understood this. To make money from the blood of others is this a good thing? If I can make money from the market others must lose or Earth must suffer from the expansion of humanity to support the pyramid game. If you will not look I cannot show it to you and if you look I don't have to show it you for you can see for yourself.

I find this quite scarry that none of you see this. This is an obvious point and all humans have infinite potential ability so please think this over. All of you.

Alright TENYEARS, I'll bite. I've already explained why you are wrong. But I will give you the chance to show us your obvious point.

Scenario - My client, a flour milling company. The owner finds a way to more efficiently mill flour with less waste, less energy required, better for the environment and safer for his employees. Ultimately his company's stock is worth more. I make more money.

Please state who is losing and suffering here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, but I didn't say stocks were a good investment or that there was no risk. What I was pointing out was the difference between pure gambling (tossing dice for example) or making an informed decision on what to invest in..

Where most people that dabble in the stock market go wrong is that they dabble.

True. Unless you wish to become an expert your chances are not so good. Of course, you can put your money in the hand of those who make money the old fashion way; they churn it.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't agree. Just recently there was a discussion about this [I think on PBS] with an investment analyst who stated that historically, stocks are a bad investment. He cited numbers related to life savings lost by retired people, investment cycles, recessions and the depression, and I don't remember all of the details but his point seemed well made at the time. I'll look around later for a link.

The stock market is a good investment as long as you're not stupid about it. At its most fundamental, you're betting that the American economy will grow - and over all but the shortest timeframes (1-2 years), it does. And the stock market over only slightly longer timeframes (10-15 years) is always a winner. There has never been a 15 year period in US history in which the stock market has lost value.

Another example that comes to mind is something that was done every year for many years - the monkey picks. In New York, every year somebody [maybe the NY Times] had a monkey throw darts at a dartboard to select stock picks. The next year these were compared to stocks recommended by one of the top investment companies. The monkey often won; which may explain why I haven't seen it for a long time. This fact was quite famous when I was a kid.

Thats true but that doesn't make the stock market a loser, it just means that if you follow the rules, any monkey can make money. Ie, you don't need a broker or a managed mutual fund.

True. Unless you wish to become an expert your chances are not so good.

That's simply not true (I think you miss the point). The point of the monkey example is that even a monkey can make money on the stock market. Its just that you can't expect to be a quick milionaire like Evo's friend. The big winners and big losers are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of investors are people holding stocks for decades in a retirement plan. What the stock market is virtually guaranteed to provide you if ou follow that is a couple of million dollars to retire on.

In betting, odds are based on the fraction of the money taken in vs paid out. A good bet at a casino made over and over, such as black on a roulette wheel will yeild you something like a 95% return - for every $100 you put in (for example, 50 $2 bets in a row), you'll get $95 back. Obviously, that's a losing proposition, but not a terrible one (slots, on the other hand...). If you play long enough, the odds will eventually catch up with you and you'll lose. But the stock market has had an average of a 112% yearly return over its history. Long term, its a winning bet - throw darts at the NY times or hire a monkey to pick your stocks for you, it doesn't matter - if you spread your money out and let the odds take over, eventually they will take over and make you a winner.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sure the Enron investors would agree.

 

[TENYEARS]

The water is always there, drink if you thristy.

 

[Evo]

The water is always there, drink if you thristy.

The cheese is blue, eat if you're hungry.

I take it you aren't able to back up your claim then?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm sure the Enron investors would agree.

If you put all (or a large part of) your money into one or a few stocks, you know that you are raising the risk level of the investment but hope that the increased risk is worth the expected increase in returns compared to a portfolio that mimics the Dow.

The argument is this : It is possible to invest intelligently (ie : invest so as to win - which does not mean "to beat the Dow/S&P") over the long term. That possibility does not exist for gambling - unless you are the house.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sure the Enron investors would agree.

Sarcasm, I know, but the Enron investors had two problems, one was their fault (mostly) and the other wasn't. The one that wasn't their fault was they were lied to. That's criminal - someone stole that money from them. The one that was their fault is they broke Rule #1 of investing.

In any case, Enron is an aberration. It isn't typical.

edit: There is a similar thread in Politics HERE in which I posted a quickie spreadsheet with some investment potential calculations. The results will no doubt surpirse most people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What you fail to understand is this: Sure, we will experiece growth. To define which companies will reflect that growth is the challenge. This is where the game begins. There are no sure or simple answers. If like Evo's friend you are an expert, this is another matter. Your odds are much better.

If you're not an expert, buy soy bean futures!

Historically [at least], 90% of all millionares make their money in real estate.

 

[russ_watters]

What you fail to understand is this: Sure, we will experiece growth. To define which companies will reflect that growth is the challenge.

The S&P has averaged something like 12% growth per year since its inception. How is picking an S&P index fund a challenge?

Other index funds (and indices) are the same way: they eliminate the difficulty of choosing which stocks will be winners by choosing a lot of stocks.

 

[robert Ihnot]

I think that this argument is going along on the wrong lines. Is capitalism a zero sum game? If a man manufactures something, he has to pay for the material and give others a profit, then when he sells he needs a profit himself. Thus the end consumer is always paying for this expansion in cost, and includes taxes and even tarifs piled up and up.

Even so the system works! If it did not, everyone would have to obtain all the raw materials and personally manufacture everything he uses. This is impractical. But, it is very true as we go back in history this was more and more the case. So it all proves that capitalism works and is not a zero sum game. Indeed, it was said of Carnagie, by his admirers that not only did he get rich, he made many other men rich. This does not mean he made everyone rich. Gates is another case of an individual who has basically created wealth that previously did not exist.

It is only in places like Russia, where there is a tendency to believe that a rich man has stolen everything from someone else. This is a belief that capitalism is a zero sum game.

 

[BobG]

Good point by robert Ihnot. I'm surprised it took 25 posts to bring up game theory. (I have to admit, I tend to gloss pass TENYEARS's posts so I didn't bother to read this thread until the number of posts built up.)

It's not about squabbling over a limited number of resources (although, it can sometimes come down to that in special situations). It's about teaming together with people contributing what they're best at. You improve the overall wealth of people in general and everyone's piece of the pie gets bigger.

Along the more surreal track:

The water is always there, drink if you're thirsty.

The cheese is blue, eat if you're hungry.

Well, the cheese in my fridge started out yellow and has turned green so far. How long do I have to wait before it turns blue? Or can I just have someone throw pieces at me really fast to make it appear more blue? (Oops, maybe I shouldn't have eaten that)

 

[Gokul43201]

My cheese is bleu.
What should I deu ?

 

[TENYEARS]

If I own a buisness, in order to make money, I must profiet from your labor. It does not matter if you are in need or not. I take from the exess of your labor or else how could I employee you. In essence that is stealing? If I buy a stock and make money either one of two things must happen, I make money from your loss or I make money from the irresponsible behavior upon the environment which is at your delayed cost, or to your children or some one else. The irresponsible behavior also comes under the running of almost all business which produce goods, or use good which impact the environment at a defered cost. You all have blinders on. You will not see because it will to painful to look. It is easier to do what is already done.

I still find it hard to believe that none of you understand this point. Gain loss loss gain. There is nothing else. The universe is balanced. Humans do not know it is so that is why they do what they do. Easy way out which becomes the difficult. Reminds me of a great line in movie "bla bla I don't want to fight you I am searching for so and so. "You must", well what if I walk around you. "That is not in the way of things!". "Circle Of Iron".

Let me go bang my head against the wall. I will do so until one of you understands. If I go unconscious then we can all be the same. I too will have drunk fromt he well.

 

[Evo]

If I own a buisness, in order to make money, I must profiet from your labor. It does not matter if you are in need or not. I take from the exess of your labor or else how could I employee you. In essence that is stealing?

If you are paying the person for working for you, no that's not stealing.

If I buy a stock and make money either one of two things must happen, I make money from your loss

There is no loss, you really do not understand the stock market.

or I make money from the irresponsible behavior upon the environment which is at your delayed cost, or to your children or some one else. The irresponsible behavior also comes under the running of almost all business which produce goods, or use good which impact the environment at a defered cost.

Are you suggesting that everyone in the world stop manufacturing goods? No more cars, medicine, clothing, furniture?

Let me go bang my head against the wall. I will do so until one of you understands.

It appears to me that everyone does understand.

You make nebulous statements, but never give a specific argument. You also avoid answering direct questions.

 

[TENYEARS]

Evo, I am not out to upset such a pretty face. My comments are not directed at you, but are for the general populous of the forum. I do not aviod direct points, it is that I want, I need or maybe I hope one would understand the perspective I see. I can and really do see the future. This is where my perspective comes from. The future or any question I desire to answer comes from relentless questioning until the barrier is breached. I suppose it is difficult to believe, hell I would not believe me. I am not looking for anyone to believe anything. I once saw a man who could not walk walk again. I questioned it until something gave, it was not me. Once we are part of this world, it is difficult to imagine anything else. Our view, our life. Tell me, do you think me to be a liar? An attention getter? Why would a man say and do such stupid things? What value? What purpose? You are curious though I can see it in your words.

 

[Janitor]

In an era where the economy is expanding when viewed long-term, ("secular trend" or whatever the cognoscenti in the investing world call it), is it fair to say that stock trading is not zero-sum, in the sense that both the seller and the buyer can say that they ultimately did well from the transaction between the two of them?

A former co-worker told me that statistics show that 90% of stock investors have a net loss over their investing lifetimes. I find that hard to believe, and I suspect it was either sour grapes on his part if he had ever invested and lost at it, or a sort of sadistic wishful thinking if in fact he had never invested and didn't plan to ever do so.

This might be too personal to expect anyone to respond to, but an interesting tangential thread here would be to tell stories of some investment that either did absurdly well for you, or horribly badly.

EDIT: I just read the posts above by Robert and by Bob, so I apologize for the redundancy on the zero-sum issue.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A former co-worker told me that statistics show that 90% of stock investors have a net loss over their investing lifetimes. I find that hard to believe, and I suspect it was either sour grapes on his part if he had ever invested and lost at it, or a sort of sadistic wishful thinking if in fact he had never invested and didn't plan to ever do so.

That isn't sour grapes, it's just the truth. Just like the majority of new business go out of business in three years. People are in denial of what the true situation is. It is true the in the long run the market goes up, but you know what Keynes said about the long run. In the finite run of an actual small investor, the market fluctuates, and people get caught with insufficient funds.

 

[robert Ihnot]

If you look at Minerva, the Greek goddess and patron of Athens and Troy, she excelled above all at spinning, and was enraged when challenged by Arachne, who she changed into a spider. Indeed, women were valued economically in the middle ages by just how efficient they were weaving clothes. The very term "distaff side" refers to an instrument of spinning and to a female. The term "spinster," meant that the unmarried lady was busy practicing her weaving arts in order to attract a suitor.

Then the story of Rumplestilskin, where the Miller tells the King, that his daughter can change straw into gold. The King was very skeptical, interested and angry. Why angry? because such a woman was, after, suitable to marry, even a king! And she did!

Gandhi went around with a small weaving device and wove his own clothes. Why? because as he noticed the British could import the raw materials from India, run it through their mills, and then ship it back to India, and put the local weaver out of business!

This is the story of capitalism and the machine age. Sure, people were displaced. But do women want to go back to an age where they spent all day weaving at home? Remember it is a very tedious job, there wasn't much lighting at home in the Middle Ages, and you could cut your fingers!

Capitalism creates wealth, and today everybody has more and better clothes than he had when women spent much of their time spinning at home.

 

[russ_watters]

robert Ihnot, you're right of course, and though I'd like to think that's irrelevant, apparently the view is so widespread (even some people who don't realize they have it have it - see below...) that it makes people stay out of this thing we call "the economy" for fear of losing. In a zero-sum game, you only have to be above average to win (I like those odds) - but in a real economy that expands at a couple of percent over inflation per year, there are only two ways to lose: be really, really stupid (greedy) or don't play.

If I own a buisness, in order to make money, I must profiet from your labor. It does not matter if you are in need or not. I take from the exess of your labor or else how could I employee you. In essence that is stealing?

Tick, tock, TENYEARS: that's the sound of your clock generating wealth from nothing. But how much monetary wealth you get from the ticking of the clock depends on how you use the time you are given.

A former co-worker told me that statistics show that 90% of stock investors have a net loss over their investing lifetimes. I find that hard to believe, and I suspect it was either sour grapes on his part if he had ever invested and lost at it, or a sort of sadistic wishful thinking if in fact he had never invested and didn't plan to ever do so.

It is sour grapes. It simply isn't true (neither in "real" nor inflation adjusted dollars).

Now that certainly may be true when you talk about specific groups - like day-traders.

That isn't sour grapes, it's just the truth. Just like the majority of new business go out of business in three years. People are in denial of what the true situation is. It is true the in the long run the market goes up, but you know what Keynes said about the long run. In the finite run of an actual small investor, the market fluctuates, and people get caught with insufficient funds.

But since an enormous amount of wealth is created in the market (in 1970, the Dow was at about 1,000, today, its at 10,000), for only 10% of the people to see any gains would mean that the other 90% are either horribly unlucky or horribly inept.

Its a myth that you have to be smart to make money in the market - the truth is you only have to not be stupid.

When The Wall Street Journal had a handful of big-name investors throw darts at a market report to pick stocks, they proved 2 things:

1. You don't have to be smart to make money.
2. You don't have to be an expert to do as well as the experts.

And if I may get a little philosophical - this pessimistic view itself is what holds the economy (and individuals) back. Capitalism requires optomism to work - it requires that you believe in capitalism. That's why the "consumer confidence" index is so important. Optomism is the most force in a market economy.

The danger, of course, is irrational exuberence - but I believe we've grown past the point where that can really damage the economy (ie, 1929). Time will tell, of course.

 

[chronon]

I can make money at anything I wish I do not because it is a hollow prospect. I was 13 when I understood this. To make money from the blood of others is this a good thing?

Tenyears, how much unemployment is there where you live? Are you really saying that you have the ability to start a business and employ some of the unemployed people but you choose not to because it would be stealing from them?