Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I would say the Stock Market, as a place of business, is lawful. And just like many lawful things, it is capable of abuse. Many people are indeed "betting" in the stock market, and neither investing nor "keeping people honest," a function of traditional market "bears."
How do you differentiate between betting and risk involved in any transaction. Also how are you defining investing, in this previous paragraph
I think the difference is in the underlying purpose and substance. Gambling is basically solely a desire to get something from nothing.
Just for arguments sake, lets say that we are talking sports gambling. So it is not as simple as a role of the dice etc. Actually "skill" can/is involved. Also for the sake of argument, I will argue that it is just another form of entertainment, with the added possibility of money being returned or increased.
Nothing is being produced, and there is never any "gain" (in the ultimate sense) of anything.
Entertainment also normally does not "produce anything" more than a few excited feelings and some memories. (For example, a broadway show, a football game etc.)
Also gain is a very ambigious word
Not so with the stock market and transactions, because in addition to the funds being invested, there is work involved.
Try to attempt to win at sports betting, it is not falling off a log (as an aside, I have never bet on any sports, so I dont want to hear about me trying to defend my sinful passions)
I think of it this way: gambling (including the lottery) is basically a whole bunch people putting in an amount of money, and then hoping that "luck " (or worse, yet, a presumption of Providence) will allow that static amount of funds to make a profit for them.
Not all forms of gambling is just playing random chance. For example, I was in Vegas last weekend. I considered putting money on the Notre Dame vs. USC game. I had seen them both play and knew that USC was not 13 points better than ND in South Bend with tall grass. Now if I had made that bet, there would have been a measure of chance that I would be wrong, but it definitely would have been no worse than the average person investing in the stock market that some new biotech would get their drug past the FDA and onto the market.
Someone "wins," but in order for someone to "win" someone else must lose.
But how exactly is that different from regular capitalism. If one person makes the sale, then someone else did not and lost the sale. If two broadway shows are at the same time, One show wins a customer that the other show lost.
It is a zero sum proposition. In fact, gambling is inherently a collective wasteful activity, because a certain percentage also must of necessity go to the "house" which produces nothing - it only provides the venue for the gambling to take place.
On the same view, you could call all expense on entertainment wasteful. In the stock market, the brokers take money on the transaction. In movies, the theaters and perhaps the studios take cuts.
(As an aside, any argument that the "house" provides work for people - dealers, etc - is inherently flawed, otherwise prositution would be a good thing because it provides work.)
Any transaction of any sort requires a "house". So that in and of itself lends no help or hindrance to the argument. The things being transacted is the substance of the case.
Investment, on the other hand, does produce something. Not always, for there is no assurance in our sinful world that our labor will always be fruitful - people steal, are lazy, make mistakes, there is death, natural disaster, etc. But the underlying substance of all investment, including day trading, is that funds are being provided by one person to another person (often a corporation) in order to provide resources for the successful production of additional wealth.
For my part, that is a huge difference.
Day Traders at best can be seen as necessary evils for the stock market. The companies never see the funds put up by day traders. If day trading was outlawed, no company with a sound business plan would be denied funding over and above those who would be denied with day trading allowed.
I guess at the end of the day, I see most of the arguments posted as being able to be used against entertainment in general, because nothing is "produced". I think that shows an overly broad gun.
the stock market can be employed as a form of gambling, but properly used it is investing one's resources into a company and enabling it to build capital for the benefit of investors, which is actually good stewardship. The fact that there is risk involved does not automatically make it gambling. Risk is involved in all entrepreneurial endeavors. But as with all things motive and methods need to be examined to see if they are truly in accord with the eighth commandment.
