Direct: I can understand.
Indirect: that seems like a losing game. Why would gambling on a companies future ever help anyone(except the lucky?).
Indirect: that seems like a losing game. Why would gambling on a companies future ever help anyone(except the lucky?).
Most transactions in the market are not gambling. Trades happen, yes, but that is because the prospects of companies are continually changing. When it became apparent pretty much everyone would move to Netflix and streaming video, would you want to continue holding Blockbuster stock? No; you would want to sell it.
People who simply "gamble" in the market lose money about as often as they gain it, and soon stop. Hedge funds and mutual funds generally try to invest in shares on a longer-term basis rather than continually trading them; trading incurs transaction costs, and if an investment was correct and is generating better-than-benchmark returns there is no reason to sell it.
The "day trading" books you might see at your local Barnes and Noble are get-rich-quick books and are not representative of the actual professional investment industry.
For every seller, there's a buyer. The market will settle on a price at which those are evenly matched---even if that's close to zero.
You have to offer a good enough price on your Blockbuster stock to find a buyer who thinks it's a good idea. (Unless it's someone who has to cover a short position, those guys are basically forced to buy. But they'll still buy from the seller with the best price.)
Prediction markets are the most efficient way to make societal decisions; they allow everyone to combine their information and predictions without having to directly coordinate with each other. There's academic literature arguing they'd be the best way to do politics etc. At the moment all we do with them is capital allocation, but that has real-world effects: ultimately the idea is to give more money to companies that can use it better (so that they then e.g. build more factories, hire more people, make relevant buyouts) and less money to companies that will make less good use of it.
Similarly, a company that does well socially (e.g, a public hospital) but not economically would get obliterated in the stock market.
That would be regulatory failure - it is not the market's fault if the government is weak... Fix the government, get decent labor laws, let companies internalize externalities, regulate environmental impact !
> Similarly, a company that does well socially (e.g, a public hospital) but not economically would get obliterated in the stock market
Which is why, in civilized countries, public services are provided by the government or on behalf of the government.
Foisting government responsibilities upon the market is bound to create disappointment...
In any moment it seems like you're just buying thin air for money and selling that air later for (hopefully) more money. But that's the short-term view of it. In the long run you are taking a stake in a company that you hope as a whole will be worth more in the future than it is today. That stake gives you legal right of ownership to a percentage of that company and its cashflows. If it's a dividend paying company you collect regular profits from it as well.