Comment by Retric
17 days ago
If I buy and hold 1 kg of gold, in 50 years humanity still has that same 1kg of gold but it lost all the resources required to secure that gold from being stolen. As such buying gold “to hold” is actively harmful for humanity, the same is true of crypto.
I object to doing things that bring me wealth at the expense of humanity as IMO it’s just a diffuse form of theft. While you may disagree, I hope you can understand that such a stance is based on my personal morality.
In this framework, what kinds of assets are you allowed to own the title towards, and what forms of income and revenue are you allowed to have? are there other forms of wealth - like non-financial/social - that you weigh?
Personally I think most productive investments are a net positive which opens many options here. It’s mostly zero sum / predatory behavior like the worst pay to win games or online casinos that I have a problem with. A fast food restaurant isn’t serving particularly healthy food, but it is providing a service people want and minimizing food borne illnesses etc.
Similarly buying a T-Bill may arguably support some of the horrors that the US government does, but what are the alternatives revolutions and lawless societies suck.
What about you? What do you the externalities of various investments are?
so basically this framework only excludes spot commodities. yeah its not common for people to be permanently bullish on commodities outside of a few niches like bitcoin and precious metals, so you don’t hear too much about that aside from those communities.
yeah that makes it easy to adhere to, while many other asset classes dont really revolve around scarcity of the asset’s existence and ownership does convey access to a productivity. I understand your criteria now.
For me I don’t have that criteria and don’t mind zero sum things. Its an entertaining and stressful player versus player match in a massive multiplayer game. Some kinds of trades I make are not zero sum, but it’s not an important distinction for me.
I do have a criteria related to human suffering: I mainly avoid exposure to some sectors like defense contracting and publicly traded prisons. Because the incentives are out of whack and dehumanize people while hoping they suffer, said in obtuse terms.
I think there is a flaw in the resource exchange logic you presented. Where you owning 1 kg of gold means the effort to extract that gold had gone to waste. In spot commodities the scarcity and continued demand at higher prices of the commodity is what justifies the further investment into extracting that commodities from harder to reach places. If a single market participant finds utility from the use of that commodity, distinct from hoarding, then acquiring access to more is beneficial. Your hoarding helped. The main difference here is that you are looking at the resource expenditure to acquire the unit you are owning, as opposed to the future utility created by the scarcity you contribute to. That’s a choice, I wonder if there is room to re-evaluate that principle, as I’m not sure we are operating on the same information.
7 replies →