Your baseball card became worth more because more of them got lost or destroyed over time so it got more rare.
Assumption. That can happen because the athlete has a very good season, or even becomes famous/infamous for an unrelated reason.
In other words, you’re assuming it’s because supply went down, but it can also be that demand went up. Or a combination.
But that’s beside the point, which is that its value changing has zero impact on what’s in others’ wallets. Because it’s a price tag. Not an amount of actual money.
But, once the valuation is realized… then it has done all the things I said. So yes, if you only ever buy stocks and never sell them, you have never gained money that came from somewhere else… but you also haven’t become rich then.
Which it hasn’t, in the case I’m referring to, where it’s being claimed that net worth increases = equivalent decreases in others’ cash reserves.
The notion that the world’s wealth is zero sum (which is required to believe the foolishness above), when it’s exceedingly obvious that new wealth is created constantly, is a display of blatant ignorance of basic economics.
What case are you referring to? The initial comment was on how the stock market transfers wealth from poor people to rich people over time. There was no individual referred case.
While new wealth is also theoretically created, that doesn’t change the fact that it is also coming from people that don’t do well on the stock market, which is the vast majority numerically. It very much is just gambling for them, against the “house”.
I don’t know if you have to think that way because you want to feel better about something you do or if you have been taught it by someone… You are looking at something 2-dimensionally and assuming you have the full idea of it. By constraining yourself to only the simple concept of it and not what it all touches on, you are deluding yourself to the full effect it has.
Assumption. That can happen because the athlete has a very good season, or even becomes famous/infamous for an unrelated reason.
In other words, you’re assuming it’s because supply went down, but it can also be that demand went up. Or a combination.
But that’s beside the point, which is that its value changing has zero impact on what’s in others’ wallets. Because it’s a price tag. Not an amount of actual money.
But, once the valuation is realized… then it has done all the things I said. So yes, if you only ever buy stocks and never sell them, you have never gained money that came from somewhere else… but you also haven’t become rich then.
Which it hasn’t, in the case I’m referring to, where it’s being claimed that net worth increases = equivalent decreases in others’ cash reserves.
The notion that the world’s wealth is zero sum (which is required to believe the foolishness above), when it’s exceedingly obvious that new wealth is created constantly, is a display of blatant ignorance of basic economics.
What case are you referring to? The initial comment was on how the stock market transfers wealth from poor people to rich people over time. There was no individual referred case.
While new wealth is also theoretically created, that doesn’t change the fact that it is also coming from people that don’t do well on the stock market, which is the vast majority numerically. It very much is just gambling for them, against the “house”.
Yes. And it doesn’t.
If there was no stock market, poor people wouldn’t be any less poor. There was literally a lot more poverty before stock markets existed.
I don’t know if you have to think that way because you want to feel better about something you do or if you have been taught it by someone… You are looking at something 2-dimensionally and assuming you have the full idea of it. By constraining yourself to only the simple concept of it and not what it all touches on, you are deluding yourself to the full effect it has.