• ranzispa@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The difference is that companies are inherently useful and generate revenue. Stock prices can be volatile, but that does not matter as long as dividends are handed out.

    Betting is not useful, it’s just a game.

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Companies being inherently useful does not track. They can be actively useless and still generate revenue. I guess it matters how we define use and utility here. But if we define it by their capability to generate revenue, then they are exactly as useful as gambling is.

      There’s no meaningful difference there in any real framing that corresponds to reality.

      • ranzispa@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Companies can be useless and generate revenue, a gambling company is a good example. I believe it is possible to define their utility without relying on revenue. Talking about the stock market itself however, the utility of stock is to generate revenue for the owner. That is very much like gambling when relying on stock price volatility or growth and it is unlike gambling when relying on the underlying business to generate revenue.

        The main difference being that gambling will not reliably provide returns, while stock will provide a somewhat stable revenue.

        I do see differences. Besides, gambling is very often not about making money.