[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Phil Trubey [@PTrubey](/creator/twitter/PTrubey) on x 7617 followers Created: 2025-07-13 16:39:14 UTC Tucker Carlson just attacked Bill Ackman, hedge fund superstar, resulting in his defense (below). One of Tucker’s grievances is that investors are largely useless. This is part and parcel of the pervasive idea that “playing” the stock market is just gambling and thus of no more use to society than a casino. This pejorative view of the stock market and investing in general is corrosive and XXX% wrong. “Investing”, no matter how it is done (stock market or giving your daughter $XX so she can set up a lemonade stand), means buying something that will be used to deliver products or services to to society in the hopes that the activity will return a profit to the investor. This is a good thing! This is exactly where the zero sum fallacy of capitalism gets destroyed. You are literally creating something out of nothing when you invest. Thirsty people would not have been able to quench their thirst on their hot afternoon walk if you hadn’t built the lemonade stand, squeezed those lemons you bought from the farmer down the road and added that sugar following your grandmother’s recipe. The problem comes in when people look at the stock market. How is that connected to something as concrete as investing in a small company? It really is the exact same thing except you are investing in an already existing company. When a company does an IPO (ie. lists for the first time on the stock market), they are saying “Look, we have a good track record of profits from making and selling lemonade, and now we need more investment money to expand across the country”. Here’s where the professional investor comes in. They will do real work reading through the IPO prospectus, researching the lemonade market, paying attention to the country’s economy and deciding whether or not and how much to invest in Lemonade Incorporated. If investors like what they see, Lemonade Inc. will be able to raise a lot of money in the IPO and build lots of stores. If investors don’t like what they see, the company might not be able to raise any money at all, and that too is also a great outcome. Why? Because the point of investing and of an economy in general is to spend limited capital on things that will deliver value to society and not waste money on things that won’t. Socialist economies are notorious for wasting investment money. They lavish State money (raised via taxes) on propping up money losing State businesses that deliver horrible service to their customers. In a capitalistic economy, those types of companies get no investment money and eventually whither away and die leaving the limited capital for successful companies that deliver value to society. OK, the stock market can be understood when it comes to raising money (or failing to) for a new entrant into the stock market, but how does buying/selling companies that are already listed help anything? There are two main things public companies do with their stock prices. With a high stock price, they can further expand by either raising more money through a secondary offering (similar process to an IPO), or buy other companies with their high priced stock. Growth companies also use their stock price to attract high value employees by giving them stock options as compensation. Point being that, again, investors decide which companies should be rewarded and which ones shouldn’t. Badly run companies end up with a declining stock price meaning they can’t raise more money - again a good thing. Why waste limited investment money on companies that can’t make money, and thus aren’t delivering much value to society? Most of the retail investing public spends X minutes deciding whether or not to invest in the latest hot tip their uncle told them. So many people extrapolate that and think hedge fund managers are partying in the Caribbean while making quick X minute decisions of their own. But this isn’t how it works at all. Hedge funds are also graded by their investors as to which do well and which don’t. Hedge funds that don’t consistently beat the S&P XXX index, an exceedingly hard thing to do, find their investors withdrawing their money forcing them to find another job. Point being that professional investors like Ackman work very hard, bring enormous experience to the table, and deliver a ton of value to society by allocating billions of dollars to successful companies that themselves deliver value to society, while withholding money from failing businesses so as to not waste limited capital on them. XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [scams](/topic/scams) [constellation](/topic/constellation) [jeffrey epsteins](/topic/jeffrey-epsteins) [tpusa](/topic/tpusa) [investment](/topic/investment) [coins gambling](/topic/coins-gambling) [stocks](/topic/stocks) [playing](/topic/playing) [Post Link](https://x.com/PTrubey/status/1944436467889312168)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Phil Trubey @PTrubey on x 7617 followers
Created: 2025-07-13 16:39:14 UTC
Tucker Carlson just attacked Bill Ackman, hedge fund superstar, resulting in his defense (below).
One of Tucker’s grievances is that investors are largely useless. This is part and parcel of the pervasive idea that “playing” the stock market is just gambling and thus of no more use to society than a casino.
This pejorative view of the stock market and investing in general is corrosive and XXX% wrong.
“Investing”, no matter how it is done (stock market or giving your daughter $XX so she can set up a lemonade stand), means buying something that will be used to deliver products or services to to society in the hopes that the activity will return a profit to the investor.
This is a good thing! This is exactly where the zero sum fallacy of capitalism gets destroyed. You are literally creating something out of nothing when you invest. Thirsty people would not have been able to quench their thirst on their hot afternoon walk if you hadn’t built the lemonade stand, squeezed those lemons you bought from the farmer down the road and added that sugar following your grandmother’s recipe.
The problem comes in when people look at the stock market. How is that connected to something as concrete as investing in a small company?
It really is the exact same thing except you are investing in an already existing company. When a company does an IPO (ie. lists for the first time on the stock market), they are saying “Look, we have a good track record of profits from making and selling lemonade, and now we need more investment money to expand across the country”.
Here’s where the professional investor comes in. They will do real work reading through the IPO prospectus, researching the lemonade market, paying attention to the country’s economy and deciding whether or not and how much to invest in Lemonade Incorporated.
If investors like what they see, Lemonade Inc. will be able to raise a lot of money in the IPO and build lots of stores. If investors don’t like what they see, the company might not be able to raise any money at all, and that too is also a great outcome. Why? Because the point of investing and of an economy in general is to spend limited capital on things that will deliver value to society and not waste money on things that won’t.
Socialist economies are notorious for wasting investment money. They lavish State money (raised via taxes) on propping up money losing State businesses that deliver horrible service to their customers. In a capitalistic economy, those types of companies get no investment money and eventually whither away and die leaving the limited capital for successful companies that deliver value to society.
OK, the stock market can be understood when it comes to raising money (or failing to) for a new entrant into the stock market, but how does buying/selling companies that are already listed help anything?
There are two main things public companies do with their stock prices. With a high stock price, they can further expand by either raising more money through a secondary offering (similar process to an IPO), or buy other companies with their high priced stock. Growth companies also use their stock price to attract high value employees by giving them stock options as compensation.
Point being that, again, investors decide which companies should be rewarded and which ones shouldn’t. Badly run companies end up with a declining stock price meaning they can’t raise more money - again a good thing. Why waste limited investment money on companies that can’t make money, and thus aren’t delivering much value to society?
Most of the retail investing public spends X minutes deciding whether or not to invest in the latest hot tip their uncle told them. So many people extrapolate that and think hedge fund managers are partying in the Caribbean while making quick X minute decisions of their own. But this isn’t how it works at all. Hedge funds are also graded by their investors as to which do well and which don’t. Hedge funds that don’t consistently beat the S&P XXX index, an exceedingly hard thing to do, find their investors withdrawing their money forcing them to find another job.
Point being that professional investors like Ackman work very hard, bring enormous experience to the table, and deliver a ton of value to society by allocating billions of dollars to successful companies that themselves deliver value to society, while withholding money from failing businesses so as to not waste limited capital on them.
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics scams constellation jeffrey epsteins tpusa investment coins gambling stocks playing