zero sum game?????????????

[whitster]

i am going to say this one last time

if u do not understand HOW wealth is created IN GENERAL, you cannot understand the distinctions between zero sum and non zero sum games

it's that simple

i can't explain this economics concept to somebody who is completely ignorant of economics, any more than i can teach somebody without vocal cords to sing.

pick up a book. or run a business.

EVEN the most ardent communists don't make the claim that wealth cannot be created.

they simply believe their system CREATES it and distributes it more equitably

capital markets are proxies for the economy, specifically those companies that are public

if ABCD invents the cure for cancer overnight people will recognize that ABCD - THE COMPANY is worth more.

the stock will also become worth more because the market recognizes this

wealth has been created. this new product

what u don't understand is that people who own stock own a THING, not just an agreement

each share is now WORTH more

Money (which is not the same thing as wealth, but i digress) doesn't have to even come into the stock market for wealth to increase this way.

the stock could be halted. but the bid/asks will still represent the increase in wealth

where the stock used to be $10 a share

it is now bid $990/Ask $995

not a single new dollar has come into the stock market (money), but WEALTH is created cause the market recognizes the new valuation of the company, and hence the stock.

again, if wealth could ONLY be transferred than we would have the exact same amount of wealth we had in 1931, when 1/2 the country could barely afford to eat.

if you understand that wealth can be created, than you merely have to understand that capital markets can too, since they are proxies for the underlying companies

 

[ronblack]

Quote from whitster:

[B ... futures markets cannot create or destroy wealth.

they can only transfer it

stock market can create OR destroy wealth

so, your point is irrelevant and based on fundamental misunderstanding

[/B]

Maybe you haven't heard of price discovery and studies about how futures markets trading can impact the underline asset price.

You whole reference to wealth creation is a red herring. Trading, any type of trading, is theoretically a zero-sum game and practically a negative sum if you factor in commissions and other fees. This is what the experts say and I think they are probably correct.

Until you can demonstrate how both sides in a single transaction involving stock trading can benefit anything else you say is irrelevant.

In every transaction in the stock market, one of those involved wins and the other loses the same amount in the form of opportunity loss.

If a company "creates wealth" suddenly as in your example, the longs become richer and those that sold their shares to them lose that same amount. This is zero-sum game I think. I was not sure before but your arguments against it are so poor that I am forced to subsribe to the other view.

Ron

 

[HolyGrail]

Quote from ronblack:

Maybe you haven't heard of price discovery and studies about how futures markets trading can impact the underline asset price.

You whole reference to wealth creation is a red herring. Trading, any type of trading, is theoretically a zero-sum game and practically a negative sum if you factor in commissions and other fees. This is what the experts say and I think they are probably correct.

Until you can demonstrate how both sides in a single transaction involving stock trading can benefit anything else you say is irrelevant.

In every transaction in the stock market, one of those involved wins and the other loses the same amount in the form of opportunity loss.

If a company "creates wealth" suddenly as in your example, the longs become richer and those that sold their shares to them lose that same amount. This is zero-sum game I think. I was not sure before but your arguments against it are so poor that I am forced forced to subsribe to the other view.

Ron

Opportunity costs can never be fully substantiated, and should not be included in the mix of this discussion IMO. If I purchase a stock for 20 dollars and sell it for 30 dollars on it's way up to 45.00 I did not lose 15 dollars in opportunity because you don't know what I did with my profits. I might of purchased a stock that went up more than 15 dollars in a shorter period of time.

 

[FullyArticulate]

Quote from ronblack:


In every transaction in the stock market, one of those involved wins and the other loses the same amount in the form of opportunity loss.

"Opportunity loss"?

The point whitster is trying to make is that in the futures market there must exist an equivalent number of two states:
long
short

In the stock market, there may not be any shorts at all. None. The company sold their shares and everyone else bought them. The company does not lose money when the stock goes up--they are long the physical asset (their company!) Selling shares is essentially a hedge.

The investors, on the other hand, can all make money. As they dry up the liquidity pool, new buyers will want to spend more for the stock.

"Opportunity loss" is a nonsequitur. Just because you sold your stock (becoming flat) doesn't mean that you SHOULD have made money when the stock goes up later, and that somehow you're a loser when the person you sold the stock to is a winner.

Compare that to the futures market. Someone loses $1 when someone else makes $1. On the stock market, the price goes up $1, everyone makes $1, except the company who sold the shares in the first place, and they don't make or lose anything.

 

[whitster]

"If a company "creates wealth" suddenly as in your example, the longs become richer and those that sold their shares to them lose that same amount. This is zero-sum game I think."

except that says nothing about zero sum games

this is a classic example of somebody wanting to redefine a word to suit their prejudice/lack of understanding

poker is zero sum. and in a home game, with no rake, it is pure zero sum

if i get up from the table, and i WOULD HAVE been dealth pocket a's the next hand would have beaten pocket K's for $5,000 that's groovy

it's a lost opportunity.

it says nothing about zero sum

again, your argument isn't even RELEVANT to zero sum

the stock market is not zero sum for one reason and one reason only.

it is not structured such that for each dollar lost, there is a dollar gained.

the futures market IS structured that way

you can make up any definition you want about what u WANT zero sum to mean. but redefining terms doesn't "win" an argument.

zero sum was designed to describe a specific type of system. the stock market is not that system.

also, the poster's point about the stock market for daytraders EFFECTIVELY being LIKE a zero sum game is basically correct

and i made that point about 20 posts ago

daytraders are basically handing off the same set of shares to each other and trying to game each other for buying lower and selling higher, and usually going flat

WITHIN that group of people, it is effectively (to a large extent) similar to zero sum

but it is not zero sum

it merely appears to be within a narrow section of people who are flipping the same shares and then going flat.

get some understanding. you are wrong, and your argument about economists is false.

go to any university and find me an economist who claims the stock market is zero sum

try it

 

[whitster]

to clarify in one sentence for the hard of hearing "opportunity costs (lost opportunity cause you didn't stay long and catch the whole move) are 100% irrelevant to zero sum)

if the SUM of positions does not add to zero, it is not zero sum

that is definitional.

unless the stock market has the EXACT same # of shorts positions as long positions in ALL shares of ALL stocks - and the market is structured such that it HAS to be that way, it is not zero sum

that is the criterium.

 

[HolyGrail]

Quote from whitster:


unless the stock market has the EXACT same # of shorts positions as long positions in ALL shares of ALL stocks - and the market is structured such that it HAS to be that way, it is not zero sum

that is the criterium.

After all of this discussion, that was absolutely the best way to describe zero-sum.

 

[Cache Landing]

Wow!!!! You guys are in an endless cycle of arguing semantics.

Whitster is correct about game theory. He is talking about whether or not a system is actually "zero sum" according to game theory. According to this theory the stock market is NOT zero sum. The futures/derivatives markets are. It doesn't matter whether or not a stock certificate is technically a liability to a company. The owners of the company do not LOSE money when that share of stock increases in value.

You guys are arguing a case for the market being "net positive/negative" when this is NOT the same thing as a zero sum system in game theory. Because you're arguing apples and organges, this debate will never stop.

 

[whitster]

oh, and btw - the futures market is structured that way

open interest can vary.

but there can never be more longs than shorts in the futures market

try looking at COT reports if you find that concept hard to understand

 

[NUTSNEAL]

Quote from FullyArticulate:

For this to be a fair statement about futures, you have to ignore hedging.

constrain the argument solely to the futures market and ignore the cash market.

Whitster

Also, don,t forget that you must also ignore the crap game in the alley behind the drug store.

This is all sssssoooooo funny!

You might as well admit that it is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
You will just waste your time while annoying the pig.

And, keep in mind some, maybe even many, pigs are smarter than the ones you are trying to teach HERE on ET.

Just be glad they are out there to trade against.