[mdasen]

> 1 bitcoin is worth $50,000 and has less utility. Tesla stock is worth more than every other car company put together, yet I don't see half of global car sales being Tesla.

I think there's a distinct difference here. Bitcoin believers think that bitcoin is worth that and that it's so important. Tesla believers think that Tesla will take over the world, become the self-driving handle-every-transit-issue company, and become dominant in the power industry as well. I'll throw in that gold is of extremely limited utility (for jewelry and industrial purposes), but people think that's really valuable. Warren Buffet talked about how gold was worth as much as 16 ExxonMobiles plus all the crop land in the US plus a trillion dollars left over. Would you rather have a cube of gold that fits in a baseball infield (68 feet per side) or companies that make stuff. If you had $15T today, would you buy the FAANG + Microsoft and still have $7T burning a hole in your pocket or would you go for the shiny cube!

But people still believe gold has so much value.

That contrasts with GameStop where the dialogue was about forcing someone who had a short position to have to buy the shares to cover their position at a high price and drive the price up further. Most people who invest in gold aren't thinking, "I'm going to make money off the bigger idiot who comes after me". People who believe in Bitcoin aren't thinking they have to hoodwink a bigger idiot into buying them in the future - they're just so awesome! People who are Tesla bulls think Elon Musk is going to change the world and grab all the profits across several industries.

I'm not saying one way or the other that the government should regulate these trades, but there is a big difference. In one case, people genuinely believe in the things they're buying. In the other, they're trying to manipulate or take advantage of something in the system - in this case, that someone was short and could be squeezed if enough people/money went in on the squeeze.

[chii]

> forcing someone who had a short position to have to buy the shares to cover their position at a high price and drive the price up further.

why shouldn't that be allowed? If the person shorting has a demand for the share (to cover their position), they must pay for their demand. They knew this could happen going in, and assumed the risk.

[pid_0]

>Most people who invest in gold aren't thinking, "I'm going to make money off the bigger idiot who comes after me".

Uh... this is literally how any investment works.

[mdavis6890]

No it is not, at all. Investments [are believed to] have intrinsic value that may be realized over time. I DO NOT need to sell an investment to make money on it. It is this belief in enduring value creation that gives an investment its present value, and certainly I can buy or sell the investment at any time based on this present value. Circumstances can change the relationship between the value creation and present value, and give me more opportunities to exit an investment profitably, if I want to.

But an investment is a belief in enduring value creation, not a belief in selling to a greater fool, or selling at all.

This is why (for the most part) gold, currencies and other 'stores of value' ARE NOT investments, in the proper sense.

[pid_0]

>I DO NOT need to sell an investment to make money on it.

You literally cannot make money from an investment without selling it (sans dividends, rent, etc but thats not really what we are talking about)

In the case of BTC and TSLA, people are ONLY buying it because they expect it to go up, and then they will sell to someone "idiot"

[belltaco]

Why does it necessarily have to be an idiot? If you bought a home in 2000, and you sell it today for 4 times the cost to someone that wants to live in it, are they an idiot?