Is the stock market a zero-sum game?
No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game.  Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade.   But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question.  But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts.  Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that.  But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game.  All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money.  And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment. Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors?  You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion.   Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales.  Sales trade products for money.  The creation of the product creates value.  A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs.  That's what profit is:  added value.  The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock.   This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends.  The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend).  But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock.   A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway.  Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case.  It operates more like a mutual fund than a company.  As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend.  If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors.  But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time.   There are other stocks that don't pay dividends.  For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend.  It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock.   Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average.  It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it.  If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock.  If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck.  If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck.  But it shouldn't matter to you.  You wanted money for something.  You received the money.   The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value.  It is completely unrelated to trading losses.  Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group.  Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value.   If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up.  To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves.  Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other.  But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them.  The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth.  It's a risky worth.  Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses. No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange. "While this seems overall a macroeconomics question and not really personal finance, let me give it a shot: The question of why corporations form in a free or efficient market is why Ronald Coase received the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics, for his work developing the theory of the firm Corporations organize when there are transaction costs in the free market; corporations form when it is in fact more efficient for a corporation to exist than a number of small producers contracting with one another.  To the extent that corporations add efficiency to a total market, they are not ""zero sum"" at all; the net production is increased over what would exist in a market of sole proprietors who would have costs (such as researching the trust levels in counterparts, regulatory compliance, etc) that they cannot bear to engage in the same level of transactions." Suppose everybody stopped all economic activity right now. No more work for others, no payments, no trade in kind or otherwise. Would average wealth stay the same? Of course not. Economic activity is not a zero sum game. Most of our economic activity is organized in the form of companies. If the companies manage to make more profits by doing useful things more efficiently, or when they find new useful things to do for profit, then not only the company's value grows but also the sum total of all useful things produced in the economy. That means it's not zero sum. When stock prices go up, that is often because the companies really have become more valueable.
It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations.  But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it.  So the essence of your question is fundamentally true.  But the details make it different.  Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting.  Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues.  A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference.  You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote.  Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company.  But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed. With near zero marginal cost, and infinite supply, your prices are going to be decided by entry cost, competition, and what the market will bear. Generally speaking, though, there are no accurate models for getting these kinds of optimal prices in advance - your best bet is to test, experiment, and then build a business and market specific model based on what you observe.  Look at the Steam network, as an example. They are in the business of selling 0 marginal cost software (games), in a market with a significant but quickly decreasing entry cost, and with solid competition. Despite being around for years in a mature market, they're still discovering unexpected optimal price points when testing how their customers behave. "This depends strongly on what you mean by ""stock trading"".  It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between ""trading"" and ""investing"", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that ""market rate of return"" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the ""great recession"" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want." "Reich is trying to highlight the disparity between the market price of a person's labor and the real social value of that labor. But while the former concept has a standard definition in modern economics, the latter does not, and Reich does not offer one. That is why I found the article dissatisfying. It's clear he is lamenting the disparity, but he gives no clue about what the disparity actually amounts to.  Case in point:  &gt; Does anyone seriously believe hedge-fund mogul Steven A. Cohen is worth the $2.3 billion he raked in last year, despite being slapped with a $1.8 billion fine after his firm pleaded guilty to insider trading?  I would wager that whoever paid Cohen the money believes it pretty seriously. By rhetorically asking whether *anyone* so believes, Reich assumes away the existence of whoever pays Cohen. His tone throughout the rest of the article is similar. Yet this is precisely where Reich could have stepped in with a definition of social value, e.g.:  &gt; Stephen A. Cohen raked in $2.3 billion last year, despite being slapped with an $1.8-billion fine because of insider trading by his firm. Yet the social value of his work is far lower than $2.3 billion. Here's what I mean by ""social value"" and a way to approximate it...  Here is something Reich does say later on that is probably true and worth emphasizing:  &gt; Most financiers, corporate lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants are competing with other financiers, lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants in zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another.  Of course, this is also true of many government officials, athletes, and social activists. But the concept of a socially wasteful zero-sum game--and its implications for welfare--ought to be much more widely understood by the general public. Reich should be praised for calling attention to some examples of it, but it would have been much better if he had dwelt on it a little more instead of just ranting." Ah, pardon me, so it's not *either* 10x return or zero, but also includes points in between there?  Is it path dependent? Do you have any history on the asset?  The usual crutches for dealing with unknown probabilities are using risk neutrality or arbitrage pricing, but if the market is inefficient then that will be an estimation at best. It depends on the market that you participate in. Stock markets are not zero sum as JoeTaxpayer explained. On the other hand, any kind of derivative markets (such as options or futures) are indeed zero sum, due to the nature of the financial instruments that are exchanged. Those markets tend to be more unforgiving. I don't have evidence for this, but I believe one of the reasons that investors so often lose their money is psychology. The majority of us as humans are not wired to naturally make the kinds of rigorous and quick decisions that markets require, especially if day trading. Some people can invest time and energy to improve themselves and get over that. Those are the ones who succeed. "The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or ""going short.""  When you use money to buy shares, it is called ""going long."" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything.  Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share.  You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000.  You are both long and short in the stock for $2000.  At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds.  You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share.  Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000.  However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares.  Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest.  Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share.  Your long shares have lost $1000 in value.  However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares.  However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything.  Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time.  However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame.  The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting.  Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time.  You are only attempting to hedge your bets.  And it doesn't work.  A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position.  And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future.  This, however, doesn't really change things much.  Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term.  Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess.  And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain.  You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop.  You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon.  Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short.  However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position.    And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up.  You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain." No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels.  Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.