A long while ago, I read Marilyn's and Investopedia's explanation of what happens when markets fall like they do (and will). Where did all of that money go? It just vanished, the presses reported. That question was back in 2009, when Ben was still feeling his way through the mess.
I railed then, and have since, about the "stupid" gaming (see chimera). Why is it stupid? Well, about now, when things have inflated (you see, Janet, look at how the financial assets have inflation - sheesh, also we have some costs of our living rising - her little chart is way off base), moms and pops are buying into the game. They are guaranteed losers (the late buyers). Then, we hear that people are borrowing to buy stock.
So, we have to revisit this again. An alternative? Yes, more stable approaches do exist.
One motivation for the revisit is looking at Dalio's take. He shows financial assets in his little model as something that money (and credit) can buy. And, he shows how financial assets can diminish in value. Also, leveraging came up in the video. But. the whole issue of why we have done it this way is ignored. You see, the game, as is, seems to provide a perpetual machine (which we know does not exist) that "feeds the multitude" but actually pays into the pockets of a few (most of them the game owners and controllers). Too, we have led other societies and countries into the same silliness.
Now, the title of the post comes from Marilyn's remark. What I have done is put the two responses side by side (Marilyn at Parade, Investopedia staff). Let's look at them and comment below.
You see, Marilyn says that the money disappears. Too, she says that only "a small percentage" can sell to get what they expect (my words, but not arguable except for angel counting). Yet, we have people putting their life's savings, and their retirement plans, upon such a stupid (there I go, again, and I would ask Marilyn, do you think this is how it ought to be?) system. Investopedia says "disappeared into thin air" without an adequate explanation. Yes, financial community, explain yourself, please?
Those who are takers always gloat (ala the 99% and such). Those not taking (but, being took) are multitude, who are mostly enslaved to care for, etc. the gloaters (those who are slowly enmeshing/entrapping reality and us, insidiously - we, the users, need our modernization of the Magna Charta - we'll get back to that).
Anyone care about sustainability into the future? Anyone care that we have indebted future generations?
All I can see is that these financial schemes expect an endless line of suckers. The past year or so has given us, once again, bubbles upon bubbles. Some, like the mortgage expert - what's his name? - who said the word but didn't go further. Janet seems to not notice, given her lessons from Alan and Ben.
Remarks: Modified: 03/07/2014
03/07/2014 -- Not arguing that equity ownership is not necessary. Rather, it is the financial market's current state of evolution (madness, really) that is suspect; especially, the use of algorithms to game the system has no basis beyond merely mercenary motivations (resulting in useless churn accompanied by endless pilfering). ... One thing to notice is that these financial dealings have little to do with the operation of a business. And, as we will show, the modern configuration of these is very much like a casino (general adoption of gaming as the basis for ontology -- sheesh, I agree with my friend, Albert, on this - we'll get to that , too). ... We intend to get back to cosmology. And, the Wilshire 5000 looks like a better Index to use for our purposes. So, we will use it.