Robinhood was founded on that idea, but it turns out it's kinda hard to deliver. When people where trying to invest into this rising stock they ran out of credit at their clearinghouse and had to stop their customers from trading.

The real problem is that the stock market has historically delivered 7-9% on average, and consensus is it will likely be considerably lower in the future. Making significant money from an ownership share like that takes decades of disciplined saving and investing. The narrative of WSB that "the rich won't let poor people invest in the stock market like they do" is ridiculous; most of the rich would be very happy with 8% per year on average.

There might be something to the idea that an internet forum will have a harder time getting away with the sort of market manipulation that the most unscrupulous hedge funds do all the time, but that's a different discussion entirely.

There's of course a related discussion of how much some people can afford to invest in the stock market each year, but it's really only partially related. I do understand where the anger is coming from, as should everyone who has been following American politics since 2015 at the latest.

Statistically, in a zero sum game, where all players are equally skilled and the winner of each transaction is determined at random. The more transaction made, the more the wealth accumulates.

What this means is, that unless you are already one of the richest person on the stock markets, your most likely outcome is that you will loose money by participating. So—unless you are already rich—your optimal strategy is not to participate in the stock markets.

The stock market--just like the economy--is not a zero-sum game. I don't know what to tell you. The S&P500 over the long term has consistently performed quite well, for many decades. Maybe if your picture of participating in the stock market involves day trading, sure, statistically the majority of people who try will break even or come out with a loss. But that's not what financial advisers recommend average people do! You should be doing a daily cost average by setting aside a small portion of your income to invest, ideally in a tax-advantaged IRA (or 401k if your employer offers one.)

Thank you, but I prefer a savings account at my local credit union. I’m sure the interests will amount to something similar as what some random hedgefund manager can conjure by gaming the market.

If not, then I can live with it, knowing that what little interest I earned, at least it wasn’t earned by taking profits out of other workers. And in the best case scenario my savings got lent out to other members of my credit union that used it to buy homes or start businesses in my community.

With all due respect, savings accounts can barely keep up with inflation, if at all. The last couple of years it was not uncommon to have 15%+ gains with a diversified portfolio.

At today's interest rates it seems like you're probably going to lose a lot of money to inflation. At the very least why not buy government bonds?

Alternatively based on your posts it seems like maybe you would like investing in a ESG fund.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-an...

You're going to have to explain how buying shares === workers earning less because I don't follow.

A simple index fund will outperform interest earned from a savings account by quite a bit.

Is there any particular reason to believe that financial advisors' advice for average people is in their best interest? (The average people that is)