this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
940 points (98.8% liked)

memes

16959 readers
2227 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 8 months ago (6 children)

i would fundamentally disagree, with gambling statistically on average, you always lose. It's not mathematically possible to win.

This is the reason that things like investment work at all.

It's complicated, but there are a lot of traders that aren't very good, and there are a lot of traders that are very good, if you just let the market do it's natural thing, it has a general tendency to go up. Especially long term, you cannot functionally do this with gambling, you ALWAYS lose.

I would argue that there are risky investments, and then safer investments, and there are really risky investments. None of these are gambling, gambling would be like i said investing most of your life savings, into a particular thing expecting a particular result, with the extreme risk of "losing everything" generally investments are never going to "lose everything" that's also why you have a broader portfolio.

I think gambling is just a fundamentally different philosophical concept.

I guess theoretically nothing stops you from literally gambling with stocks, but that would be incredibly stupid.

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I think you have a very specific definition of gambling which I don't share. To me, gambling is much broader. Wikipedia summarizes it well:

"Gambling thus requires three elements to be present: consideration (an amount wagered), risk (chance), and a prize."

That's it. It doesn't make an opinion whether the bet is fair. There doesn't have to be a casino involved at all. It also doesn't require you to put "most or your life savings" into it for it to be gambling.

I think you are conflating high risk, high stakes and even the precence of a casino into the same concept and call it gambling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"Gambling thus requires three elements to be present: consideration (an amount wagered), risk (chance), and a prize."

That definition encompasses everything we do in life. From crossing the road, to buying a fridge, to falling in love.

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago

Exactly! Which is why it is mad trying to outlaw or frown upon "gambling" with stocks.

There are many great wxamples in this thread already of why derivatives are necessary to a functioning society.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)