Re:In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism
by someguydave on Friday April 01, 2022 @11:48AM
(#30879446)
>Trading between financial participants is, cetiris paribus, always zero sum.
Only if you consider the trade in the quantity of the goods traded, and not in a prevailing unit of accounting.
Re:In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism
by JumpCrisscross on Friday April 01, 2022 @11:50AM
(#30879463)
> Only if you consider the trade in the quantity of the goods traded, and not in a prevailing unit of accounting
Nope, this is microeconomics. If you and I have the same funding costs and we trade a commodity derivative, any gain you have is a gain I gave up. Any loss you have is one I avoided.
This is true irrespective of the unit of account of point in time at which one measures it; it's an identity. The only
Re:In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism
by someguydave on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @09:11AM
(#30931567)
You are carefully defining the word “trading” to meet a narrow academic category which excludes many cases normal people consider integral to “trading”.
Someone who buys wheat, holds it and sells it the next day is definitely not “trading”, he merely engages in a series of discrete trades? Daft.
Trading between financial participants is, cetiris paribus, always zero sum. Irrespective of the timeline.
Buyer's gains are the seller's opportunity cost; buyer's losses were avoided by the seller. (Paribus violation is when parties have different funding costs.)
Moving commodities around isn't trading per se; it's logistics. Again, value adding.