No, the stock market is not gambling (or at least hasn't been, need not, and should not be). The stock market is a positive sum game, linked to the growth of the economy as a whole. Humanity is very, very far from the maximum possible utilization (and maximum efficiency) of matter and energy in this solar system or even this world. What decisions we make matters a lot in how well/how fast/whether we continue to get richer, so we've tried however ineptly and haltingly to make systems that reward short and long term gains balanced against current use priorities. And have failed plenty, and may yet fail completely. But it's perfectly possible for everyone to win, for the whole world to get "richer" (defined as being better able to meet human goals & desires within a given mass/energy budget or have more or both). Investments can yield >1x total returns. And that has indeed been the case, that's the story of modern civilization.
Gambling in contrast is strictly zero sum at best and always negative sum in reality. A group of people puts in 1x capital, the house takes a cut of that, and then the <1x gets unevenly redistributed and that's it. Nothing is generated, the collective set of people is strictly worse off after the gamble, with a few making gains off the backs of loss distributed amongst everyone else. All while hacking dopamine reward centers that didn't evolve for that.
It appears to be the case that we can't perfectly stop 100% of all IRL gambling without a cost that exceeds the benefit. That's life. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be picking as much low hanging fruit as possible, same as with other negative sum brain hacks.
I mean sure, people can find ways to use all sorts of events and activities for gambling, but that doesn't mean the events/activities themselves are. And the sentiment you expressed joking has gotten repeated with (afaict) total seriousness in these threads with some regularity (insurance is another one that people incorrectly bring up trying to defend gambling). So I think it's pretty important to differentiate between everything, and to help pass on some of the history as humans have grappled with this in the past. Insurance for example has the concept of requiring an "insurable interest" to help avoid negative incentives and gambling. You can insure your own house against burning down, but you can't take out a policy against some random stranger's house.
Yeah, I hear you. The "stock market is rigged, insurance is a scam" vibe is strong here. HN has really turned into a sounding board for bitter people who think the whole world is out to get them.
By a strict definition of gambling, the stock market is gambling: It's a monetary wager placed on an unknown future event. Just because it (often) is positive sum doesn't mean it isn't an unknown that people are betting money on.
>By a strict definition of gambling, the stock market is gambling: It's a monetary wager placed on an unknown future event.
No, that is not a strict definition of gambling, that is your own loose, personal and casual definition. The strict definition of the gambling in question under Arizona law (the subject of this article) is I believe partly under 13-3301 [0] and has a number of criteria that clearly differentiate it from investment (whether it be stock, loan by a bank or any other entity/person, or whatever else). Other polities will have their own flavors, but all of them are aimed at a net negative, destructive social activity. That's the whole point of regulating it, it's not some metaphysical philosophy thing about life having uncertainty it's about long experienced concrete harm. Trying to argue that buying shares in a broad index fund is a "wager that a meteor will not hit the Earth" is uninteresting.
>Just because it (often) is positive sum doesn't mean it isn't an unknown that people are betting money on.
It does actually! Positive sum changes everything in terms of collective incentives, strategies available and how investors can hedge risk. You may not choose to make use of all the tools available, but that doesn't make investment the equivalent of gambling. Part of the whole point of markets is to manage changing risk and information discovery (including dead ends) such that we still continue to grow overall.
Today I learned on the Internet that Tylenol is more dangerous than meth, cocaine, or fentanyl.
Wait, no I didn't. That's absurd. Tylenol can cause long term health issues if used in excess (or death, for extreme overdoses), but most illegal drugs are illegal because they can cause immediate death even at normal usage amounts.
> but most illegal drugs are illegal because they can cause immediate death even at normal usage amounts.
Huh. The amount used on the street is not a "normal usage amount". Most fentanyl deaths are due to the fact that the medical usage amount is not something you can generally measure with your dealer's scale or the scale you bought at the local head shop (we, as paramedics, would typically administer 50-100 micrograms, and for anything more than 300 we needed to consult with a physician).
In those use cases, properly dosed, fentanyl is an exceptional, powerful, and short-lived, analgesic.
When people die from fentanyl ODs they're taking dozens, hundreds, or more, than the "normal usage amounts".
You would have had a better point if you didn't include cocaine which is only really dangerous for people with severe heart problems or by using it in combination with depressive drugs that it temporarily suppresses.
If cocaine was really a problem then C-suites and politicians would be regularly dieing.
Meth used to be available over the counter in pharmacies in the US.
No drug I'm aware of causes immediate death in normal usage, except perhaps those used for lethal injection. Would you like to elaborate on that? Tylenol, on the other hand, causes an unpreventable (no antidote) slow drawn out death over about a week, where your body will be slowly decaying and you have time to say goodbye to all your loved ones, if you take a few times the normal dose by mistake
I'm not chemistry-minded enough to know what H20 would be, but I suspect you meant H2O. ("O" as in oxygen, not "0" as in zero.) (and of course the "2" would normally be subscript, but this is HN)
It's not true, as "dangerous" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Just because Tylenol (acetaminophen) is highly toxic in actually quite small doses doesn't make it as dangerous as vicodin or morphine or heroin or meth or fentanyl.
A drug is dangerous when it is toxic at an easily obtainable dose AND there is a clear incentive for people to consume it in that dose, such as addiction and tolerance. While acetaminophen is unusually toxic at doses only slightly higher than regular treatment doses, there is actually very little that compels people to use those doses, and acetaminophen toxicity is not an epidemic-level health problem the way many other drugs have become.
Acetaminophen overdose does actually have a surprisingly high rate of occurrence. A lot of people don’t realize how narrow the therapeutic band is.
Doubling your meds on a bad pain day can put you way beyond the safe limits. People think it’s safe because basically every other OTC has a huge therapeutic band, and double dosing is not recommended but not really dangerous.
CDC estimates it at 56,000 ER visits a year, 26,000 hospitalizations, 458 deaths, about a hundred unintentional deaths per year. As a point of reference, it’s about 3 accidental overdose deaths per child that dies from being locked in a hot car.
This sounds like a rationalisation to me. People take Tylenol for pain. If they're still in pain, they take more of it. Tylenol doesn't mitigate all types of pain so people might think they need more. This happens, and then they die. It happens surprisingly infrequently considering how abnormally dangerous the drug is, but it still happens.
Tylenol only works for relatively low levels of pain, which tends to be relatively short term. So abuse is not very common, and even with chronic pain, Tylenol overdosing kills quite quickly, it doesn't have time to become a habit that takes down entire families together with the chronic pain sufferer.
Either way, we don't have to assume, we can directly check the numbers. Per another commenter, Tylenol kills about 458 people in the USA every year. In contrast, death from overdose on illegal stimulants was estimated at ~33.000 people in the USA.
Now, is it fair to say that Tylenol is more dangerous than marijuana? Of course. But to say it's more dangerous than most illegal drugs? Obviously not.
I am not a physician, though I have a Masters in Biomedical Science and was a paramedic for 14 years.
I have a very difficult time taking an argument plausibly that compares Tylenol (acetaminophen, an antipyretic analgesic) to illegal stimulant use (immediately following a discussion on fentanyl, which is an opioid - about as close to opposite a stimulant as possible) - i.e. generally amphetamines.
Or comparing Tylenol to marijuana in a very apples and oranges comparison - Tylenol's dangers come from very direct hepatotoxicity (i.e. liver damage), versus marijuana's most real risks coming from impairment and intoxication (driving, judgment, panic) and their effects than toxicity of the drug itself.
It's all mixing and matching in a way that doesn't make for a sensical argument.
I was responding to someone who said Tylenol was more dangerous than "most illegal drugs". Since the only danger of Tylenol is death from overdose, I searched for some data on deaths from Tylenol overdose and deaths from illegal drugs - and happened to find data for deaths from "illegal stimulants" grouped together - so used that.
Of course, most illegal drugs, even very light ones like marijuana, have other risks, like DUI or the general ills of addiction (money issues, increased criminality from the desperation of getting another hit, etc). But even ignoring those, I thought the death numbers make it very clear that Tylenol is nowhere near "less dangerous than most illegal drugs".
I wonder what the death rate on those other stimulants would be if they were issued the same way, in regulated pharmacy stores.
I know that a lot of illegal drug overdoses are caused by people who thought they were taking a normal dose but got the wrong substance, wrong amount or wrong concentration from their dealer - who in many cases also didn't know about the discrepancy because of unreliable supply chains and difficulty of testing, both caused by illegality.
Again, that's missing the point of drug regulation. There's plenty of substances even more dangerous than Tylenol, but aren't banned. "Drugs" are banned due to a combination of (perceived) harm to user/society, potential for abuse, as well as toxicity. That's why there's plenty of substances more toxic than Tylenol, but aren't banned.
But that's missing the point of the discussion. Yes things are banned based on perceived harm instead of actual danger, that's the point of the discussion.
The utility is always the same. The stock market provides price discovery, which drives efficient resource allocation (in theory).
Theoretically, more gamblers should mean better price discovery because the payouts for correctly taking the opposing side of the trade are higher.
The market solution would be that the gambling will eventually solve itself. They’ll either learn enough to be trading on knowledge rather than vibes, fueling price discovery, or they’ll exit the market when they’ve lost too much or everything.
My sticking point is that a lot of brokers offer leverage to people they really shouldn’t. I could have sworn you had to be a qualified investor to get leverage, but if that isn’t law it should be. Show the brokerage your certification, or a pile of cash large enough to convince them you can afford to lose the whole thing.
I don't know if "theoretically" is good enough here. The theory hasn't really been tested or proven. It's more of a hypothesis, and an ideologically driven one at that.
I'm not positing that as a moral good or bad. It's possible for stock market gambling to be bad for society but have better price discovery, in the same way that dictatorships are bad but tend to have faster response times to events.
My theory is mostly that "gambling" seems like it inherently means "buying stocks based on something other than their concrete value". More gambling means stocks drift further from their "true value", which means a higher payout for correcting them back to what their price should actually be.
The whole thing does get very fuzzy because of the "market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" aspect. It's not enough to know what the correct price is, you have to know when other people will realize that as well, or else convince people that your price is "correct".
