this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
538 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

58975 readers
4071 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Great. Now how about Citadel's $65 Billion in securities sold but not purchased? Just kickin that can, eh?

Hard to see how the SEC and DTCC aren't complicit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 day ago (4 children)

All these copium defend the market takes, you telling me Tesla, a failed venture living off government subsidies, is worth 16x more than the hundred year old Ford that actually makes a profit without fraud?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Tesla stock prices in the expectation that they'll have robotaxi services and general purpose robots in the near future. And also that they will be leaders in these fields, ahead of the competition.

How likely/unlikely that is to happen is debatable, but that's why some people are valuing the company so high right now.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Weren't they one of those blocking early GME?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Yes and no. Iirc, only high-rollers got to have their trades go through.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They turned off the buy button when it was about to squeeze.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago

Even before that they have been accused of not buying stocks ordered by users, then buying at sell order and waiting for the price to raise to sell so they get a profit. It's been questioned a long time.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Let’s pause — I would like to reflect on this incredible phrase, about an asset class that democratizes access to events as they unfold. See, I thought we all had access to the events of the election because we all exist in reality and can find out about them. But apparently, if we can’t gamble on an event, it isn’t happening. This is a fascinating vision of metaphysics, and I would like to hear more about it. No one bet on my birth, for instance, and thus there is no asset class relating to my existence. So am I real?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Run by the types of people that used to run casinos...

[–] [email protected] 155 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Bruh, wtf you think stock trading is? Buying into funds is just hiring professional gamblers to work for you, "insider trading* is cheating and dark pools is just the high rollers table.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

In gambling, the house always wins, by extracting value from the players. In stock trading, the players (capitalists) collectively always win, by extracting value from labor, technological growth, and natural resources. These are not the same picture.

Sure, you can take on as much risk as you like using derivatives, and emulate a gambler using the stock market as a source of randomness (volatility). But that's not how most traders behave, and it's not how most traders' payoffs work.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (6 children)

90% of users lost money while trading

the end result is very much the same

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

In gambling, the house always wins, by extracting value from the players. In stock trading, the players (capitalists) collectively always win, by extracting value from labor, technological growth, and natural resources. These are not the same picture.

Excellent analogy. People who equate the stock market and gambling should go look up where the DJIA stood in October 1994. The slot machines in Vegas don't magically start spitting out profit just because you're patient, but stocks generally do over time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In gambling, the house always wins, by extracting value from the players. In stock trading, the players (capitalists) collectively always win, by extracting value from labor, technological growth, and natural resources. These are not the same picture.

Not all gambling requires a casino/house.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Even in a home poker game, it is not possible for all the players to go home having made a profit, whereas that is very possible in the stock market due to growth, labor, and natural resources.

(The coal miner who gets a wage and black lung is not a player in the stock market. Neither is the sun, which provides free energy to agribusiness.)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

Yes, general investing is not zero sum, however many methods of advanced trading are. Options trading, which is prominent and easy to access on Robinhood, is much closer to gambling (and is treated that way by many users) and is zero sum.

Most active trading strategies require successfully arbitraging, or extracting inefficiencies out of the market, and you can't do either of those things without someone else losing money.

Passive investment is investing in the companies that underlay the market, active trading is extracting value out of the market itself.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Stock prices at least have the possibility of being based on something substantial other than dice rolls. Derivatives, not so sure.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

It's damn near a roll of the dice of what is going to come out of a CEOs mouth during an earnings call..

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Possibility" but not an "actuality" since share prices are typically based on the feelings of major investors and not necessarily what's actually happening within a company.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Having a diversified portfolio has a positive expected return. Gambling has a negative expected return. There's a long history of stock investing resulting in positive average returns, and there's a long history of slots resulting in negative average returns.

If you're buying good companies (or buying an index) and holding long-term, you are expected to get positive returns, therefore it's not gambling. Any investment can have a negative return, it's the mathematical expectation that separates it from gambling.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's possible for the stock market only to grow because it externalizes costs (environmental damage, health of workers, etc.), and if that's the case, we need to see if society is actually proceeding in a positive direction as a whole (I generally believe this to be the case), but consider for a moment that the economic windfall experienced by many western nations was (and still is in many ways, think banana plantations) largely made possible by the subjugation of imperialized nations. In this case, was the economic windfall experienced by the imperial powers and their trade partners actually a good for society as a tide that rose all boats, or not?

If we fail to consider the biggest losers of the stock market, those that cannot even necessarily participate, it becomes much closer to gambling at the very least. I'm not here to have an argument about whether or not capitalism and the stock market and such things are actually good or bad for society as a whole, just that it's easy to ignore the biggest losers of the system by virtue of the fact that they don't necessarily even invest in the first place. In this case, the universe is the casino, and humanity are the gamblers, as compared to just the stock market being the casino and the investors the gamblers.

Not that your comment is wrong necessarily just that there's more ways of thinking about it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago

They must not be worried about pissing off Citadel anymore. I wider what that means.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

contract for difference is the operative term here.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›