You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #25: well that assumes fair distribution of information [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. well that assumes fair distribution of information
and no fraud. The fact remains that, for most people, the market is a gamble. it may well be a safer bet than a slot machine in Vegas, but it is still a wager based on someone else's predicted performance. Your plan of hedging your bets against any eventuality cannot be done (google Long Term Capital Management if you'd like) If it could be done, no one would ever lose money in the market, which simply isn't true. Even Warren Buffet loses money on occasion. Why do you think the real money on Wall Street isn't in making investments for yourself, it's in selling investments to other people? if it was a purely safe gamble then no brokers would exist, they wouldn't need your money to make fortunes, they'd be keeping that information to themselves, making money for themselves. But they don't.

one other thing: you state yourself that As long as the economy grows a diversified stock portfolio is the closest thing to risk free money this side of government securities but the economy doesn't always grow, does it? and you can't safely predict it. If companies knew they could grow without risk, they would never go public and diversify that risk, they could raise all the capital they needed from private sources, why share the revenue with a million shareholders if you can keep it all to yourself? It'd be illogical.

finally, my comments on your original point about gambling: it has nothing to do with equitable distribution of wealth. I have no problem with private gaming, just as I have no problem with other private entertainment options, such as movies, theatre, concerts, sports pay TV, amusement parks and the like. All of them take money from people in exchange from the less weathly and pass it to wealthier individuals. What am I doing by going to the U2 Concert next week but taking money from my pocket and transferring it to a group of people worth a collective billion+ in exchange for a few hours of entertainment? there is nothing inherently socially valuable about it, I gain nothing but the experience. And frankly, I could make my $200 last longer at a casino than two hours, and have the chance of getting some of it back. What are the odds that U2 will refund my ticket after the show?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC