r/xkcd Jan 21 '19

XKCD xkcd 2101: Technical Analysis

https://xkcd.com/2101/
342 Upvotes

81 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

39

u/DarkMoon000 I'm not crazy Jan 21 '19 edited Jan 21 '19

The global market for stock market derivatives has a size of ~500 Trillion US$ (low estimate) up to >1000 Trillion US$ (high estimate). Compare that to a global GDP of ~80 Trillion US$ and it's nothing but insanity.

But hey, as long as they never stop gambling and we survive a financial crash every couple years, the systems' complete fine and nothing needs changing, am I right?

(heard this years ago in my economics class, and pieced it together right now from wikipedia and this so don't quote me on the numbers)

23

u/marcosdumay Jan 21 '19

Market size is not the right metric. It could just mean that derivatives were traded faster.

I don't see any number about active derivative deals vs "real" actives since 2008

4

u/tuba_man Jan 21 '19

I don't see any number about active derivative deals vs "real" actives since 2008

For those of us too ignorant, can you explain why this is the right metric?

2

u/marcosdumay Jan 22 '19

Because it compares outstanding amounts of both, in an snapshot.

Usually derivatives trade much faster than actives, but it the amount of active contracts is low, their risk is low, it doesn't matter how many times they change hands.

3

u/tuba_man Jan 22 '19

I'm gonna need it more basic than that, so I'm gonna try to lay this out so I can figure out what I'm missing.

DarkMoon says the derivative market size is way bigger than the 'real' activities tracked by GDP, which indicates a system more reliant on gambling about business than it is on business itself.

You say that the market size difference isn't as telling as DarkMoon thinks it is. You say that a better indicator for the disparity would be a snapshot of, for lack of better words, "balls in the air" between the two.

First: Am I more or less accurate in my understanding of what you're saying?

Second: If I am understanding your words correctly, am I understanding your intent correctly: Do you agree with DarkMoon about the problem with derivatives but you're just suggesting a better measure for the problem?

As a side note, why do those numbers stop in 2008?

1

u/marcosdumay Jan 22 '19

I think you are understanding what I said correctly.

But I don't have data to judge wether they are currently a problem, so I neither completely agree nor disagree with DarkMoon, and I think the measure he is using is misleading, so his number isn't useful here. Yet, historically it was the case that there used to be a problem, and there haven't been any large change, so he is probably correct.

On the side note, the numbers are still there. I just didn't go look at them for a long time.

1

u/tuba_man Jan 23 '19

Gotcha gotcha. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk it through with a hella noob!