Money isn't lost per se, it's transferred.

ie for every loser there is a winner.

Obvious ones are those who can extract value from this companies now ( high salaries/bonus etc ), swapping worthless paper for real assets, Nvidia and their share holders etc. Investors who hold short positions etc.

▲

mlrtime 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are trying to define zero sum without saying it. The market is not zero sum, a loan isn't zero sum.

There isn't a winner and loser.

▲

DrScientist 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Why not? What am I missing.

If you loan me 10 pounds and I simply keep it or spend it but refuse to pay you back - aren't I the winner and you the loser?

Claiming that the market is a positive sum system, because I use that 10 pounds to invent something that changes world productivity is missing the fact that there is a constant stream of huge energy inputs from the sun - that's ultimately what allows the local entropy to decrease - not that you lent me 10 pounds.

▲

orwin 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I borrow you 10 money i use to buy my chair-making tools. I make the chair, sell it 20 money, then pay you 12 money back for the service rendered. Basically money is supposed to be a tool that help us creating capital by exchanging goods.

	▲	DrScientist 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But aren't you confusing the means of exchange with the creation of value. The creation of value is me taking energy from the sun and converting that into a chair. You lending me money is you extracting value from artificially being a middleman. It would have been more efficient to write an IOU to the tool maker, make the chair and pay back the tool maker directly. Now sure that IOU isn't that fungible - however that highlights one of the absurdities ( if I understand it correctly ) of the current banking system where private banks are able to in effect issue IOU's on their own basis but put mine and your name on it as a guarantor - resulting in the public having to bail out banks when they over extend.

▲

actionfromafar 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

True but the opportunity cost is truly lost. Entropy comes for everyone. If we spend a lot of money digging holes in the ground then filling them again, maybe no money was lost.

	▲	DrScientist 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure - but that's a meta question of whether the current economic/political systems are delivering good allocation of resources for whatever target function you favour. And that's complex - even in your simple example you can argue that people have likely improved their capability to dig and fill holes - and the latter skill is particularly valuable in the UK right now. ie Entropy includes information component :-)