• Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is semantics, because that’s the same thing.

    If you want to sell now you have to sell at a lower price, to have your put orders at the top of the stack. So the reason they were selling a lower price was just that they actually wanted to sell.

    Sure, you can put an order to sell at some optimistic price, and that won’t effect the stock price, but simply having a put order on a stock is not actually the same as wanting to sell. People actually wanting to sell now lowered the stock price.

    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Once I bought a set of stockes (5 of them) for 50 cents each and sold them for a dollar 2 minutes later. It’s a fun way to game the market a little if you get lucky

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s gambling. Highly complicated strategies exists, but at the end, it’s gambling. And somehow we’ve let ourselves get convinced that’s the way the world should be run

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Basically any way of making an income has risk, but we don’t consider most such things gambling. Even a fixed-income investment is gambling, since the value of the dollar can fluctuate randomly. What concerns me about the stock market is not its randomness but rather its reliability in outpacing inflation. It seems from a bird’s-eye view like a mechanism which is almost guaranteed to concentrate wealth into those who already have it. Surely that wealth must come from somewhere?

          I think I need to learn macroeconomics.