[swatcoder]

Market/fund investment for us normal folk is so passive and disempowered that it really does amount to gambling. You put some share of your hard-earned wages in and hope for the best.

It's been shown to be a mostly rewarding strategy over the last century of so, averaged out at least, and so of course it's not really a foolish bet for most folks, but it's not the only way to secure one's financial health and isn't the ideal one for everybody.

Scrappy hustlers, skilled trade workers, and (SMB-scale) entrepreneurs in particular can often see a better return by investing in themselves and in ventures in their own community, where things are not so passive. Likewise, people with modest dreams and a preference for stability often might prefer securing a paid off house, car, etc before throwing too much money into the casino -- even on good bets. And others with strong and healthy family bonds benefit most by prioritizing enrichment and opportunity for family members who can be trusted to return the favor in less flush/capable times. etc

Many young people have only really been exposed to the idea of market investment as a retirement strategy, and its a good one for many, but there are a lot of roads to staying financially healthy through late life.

[solatic]

> entrepreneurs in particular can often see a better return by investing in themselves and in ventures in their own community, where things are not so passive.

You don't understand the power of diversification in portfolios. Yes, there are plenty of individual ventures that will return more than an index fund. But individual ventures are fundamentally volatile. They are volatile because human beings are not machines. People burn brightly and then burn out. People push hard and then fall sick. Cultures and institutions and trust are painstakingly built, and then wiped away in an instant by ideologues.

As an individual investor, you have your labor and your savings. You cannot productively diversify your labor, but you can diversify your savings.

[dinkblam]

yes, diversification is the basis for sound investing.

yet, if you look at all people and companies that have grown extremely rich extremely quickly, there is one very common factor: they didn't take money out of the company, but reinvested every single penny. thats the way you can outgrow your competition which doesn't do the same thing. failing businesses are often those that paid too much to their owners.

[solatic]

> reinvested every single penny. thats the way you can outgrow your competition which doesn't do the same thing

First of all, to reinvest, you need to have some profits in the first place. Even getting to the point of having any revenue at all, you're losing 90% of entrepreneurs just to get there. Second, among those 10% of entrepreneurs who get to the point where they have any revenue (let alone profits), it's sheer hubris to think that you are unique or special in reinvesting; most entrepreneurs are not seeking to take their goose's golden eggs while they are the size of peas.

There are very, very, very few entrepreneurs who pass survivor's bias to talk about their golden eggs.

[umbra07]

That's not being financially healthy. That's far closer to gambling than investing in a diversified portfolio is. Just because you add the potential for an extremely high return does not make a strategy financially healthy.

[UK-AL]

Plenty of businesses also fail. In fact a large chunk do.

Starting a business is one of the most risky things you can do. Much more risky then having a diversified portfolio. However the rewards can be amazing given the relatively small chance it hits jackpot.