[_se]

You also display either a very basic misunderstanding or willful ignorance. There's no gambling involved - investing is not dumb chance. There are real companies behind these purchases with real expectations of future growth and thus increase in value. Or vice versa.

Everyone loves the "you can't beat the S&P" trope, but that's also just ignorance. There's a reason that proprietary trading firms generate more profit per employee than any other business in the world.

[watwut]

I do personally know people who do invest and it is 100% gambling for a lot of small "investors". The only ignorance is to pretend it is not a thing. This point becomes super clear once you start looking at trading apps targeting this market.

> There's no gambling involved - investing is not dumb chance

First a gambling does not have to be a theoretically pure dumb chance in order to be gambling. Second, in practice it basically the same thing as betting on horses used to be.

There is a reason why small investors loose money on their investments on average despite markets going up. Because what they do is not investing.

> There are real companies behind these purchases with real expectations of future growth and thus increase in value.

Oh common, this relationship is quite broken for exactly the most known companies.

[solumunus]

> There is a reason why small investors loose money on their investments on average despite markets going up.

Source?

[Esophagus4]

> Everyone loves the "you can't beat the S&P" trope, but that's also just ignorance.

This seems like a willful misinterpretation.

They say “you won’t beat the S&P” because maybe some HFT firm with highly secretive and advanced technology and MIT PhD quants might… but you, Mr. Retail McDumbMoney, don’t stand a chance.

[solumunus]

And it’s still nonsense. Many people beat the S&P and this meme needs to die. It’s considerably easier to beat the S&P when you’re not working at the scale of a hedge fund.