[hackyhacky]

Your comment does not address the (imho reasonable) criticism that the described system incentivizes gambling as the key to wealth, rather than labor.

There are many problems with a gambling based economy, not least among them that over a long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands.

[sokoloff]

I don’t view long-term investing in productive companies as anything close to gambling.

[hackyhacky]

Which is fine, except that one can't know in advance which companies will continue to be productive..that's why it's gambling.

[sokoloff]

Feel free to avoid it if you think it’s gambling.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-dat...

[hackyhacky]

This does nothing to support your point.

[sokoloff]

Studying that chart might reveal a way to long-term invest in a way that isn't anything like gambling.

Or, I might be completely wrong and just been on an incredible white-hot-streak gambling for the last 30 years.

[hackyhacky]

"I can win" is not a refutation of the claim that investment is gambling in any way that matters. The more relevant question is: does investment reward productivity (i.e. skill, strength, labor) or does it reward ownership (i.e. those who have capital will continue to accumulate capital)? By your own statement, it seems the latter.

All of that money that you've "earned" with investment, where do you think it came from? What do you think you've done to deserve it? If investment is fundamentally risky, then it's an unsound basis for a stable society (i.e. it's gambling); if it's not risky, then you can't even argue that you deserve that money by having risked your own capital.

[WalterBright]

> a long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands.

You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.

[hackyhacky]

> You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.

That assumption does not follow from my statement.

What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get richer and the poor get poorer. We've already seen that the rise of billionaires correlatives with an increase in wealth inequality and poverty.

[WalterBright]

Gambling is zero sum, so it does follow from your statement.

> the rise of billionaires correlatives with an increase in wealth inequality and poverty

The rise of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with scores of millions of people rising out of poverty into the middle class and beyond.

> What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get richer and the poor get poorer.

Creating value does not make the poor poorer.

Consider the wealth in America today. Compare it with the wealth in America in 1800. Where did all that wealth come from? Rich European immigrants?

Did you know that when Rockefeller built Standard Oil, the price of kerosene dropped 70%. Just who exactly was he "robbing"?

[hackyhacky]

> Gambling is zero sum, so it does follow from your statement.

My statement was "long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands." That has nothing to do with zero-sum. Even if we assume that your premise of "rich billionaires make everyone else richer too", it does nothing to contradict my statement.

> The rise of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with scores of millions of people rising out of poverty into the middle class and beyond.

The decrease in poverty in that time period stems principally from industrialized farming techniques, increasing available food resources. There is nothing in that process that requires super-billionaires.

> Creating value does not make the poor poorer.

That depends. If all the created value is in the hands of rich, it gives the rich the power to buy more things, including things that the poor people need, e.g. housing. That drives up prices for the poor, and effectively decreases their buying power. That's how supply and demand work.

> Consider the wealth in America today. Compare it with the wealth in America in 1800.

Now consider the wealth distribution in America now versus the wealth distribution in America 60 years ago. At that time, the difference between the rich and the poor was much smaller. It was also a time of great economic expansion, opportunity, and innovation. So clearly super-billioniares cannot be necessary for economic productivity.