I got this question in the Ask Cullen section  over the weekend and I think its an important one since I seem to get it quite often.   Its interesting to note that there doesnt actually seem to be a very good answer online (at least not as far as my brief search went) so I used a brief (and probably overly simplistic) example to describe why the description of zero sum is incorrect.  This also works into the concept of moneyness in Monetary Realism quite nicely as youll see that the stock market doesnt necessarily increase the amount of money in the system, but can increase/decrease our wealth.

This concept confuses a lot of people, but its important because it touches on how stocks are money-like, but not necessarily high on the moneyness chart (because they must be converted into deposits in order to be used for transactions). Lets work through an example that will help.

Lets say you have 3 people and 1 corporation. And the 3 people all have $10 for a $30 total. And then the corporation decides to raise capital so it issues 4 shares of stock at $4 or $1 per share. Lets assume two of our people buy the entire issue and become owners of 2 shares each for a total of $2 each ($1 per share). So our corporation has $4 and our two investors own 2 shares each valued at $1 per share ($4 market cap).

Then, a year later, for whatever reason, investor 1 decides the stock is worth 100% more and tries to sell it on the stock exchange where person 3 purchases the 2 shares for $2 each ($1 higher than the IPO price). Now person 3 owns 2 shares each valued at $2 for a total of $4 and person 1 has $12 TOTAL of which $2 is their capital gains on the stock sale. Person 2 still own his 2 shares that are now worth $4 total ($2 unrealized cap gains).

Is there more money in the system? No. Person 1 has $12 (he had $10, invested $2 and generated a return of $2 for a total of $12 in net worth). Person 2 has $8 and shares of stock that he believes are now worth $4 (ie, he think hes worth $12). Our corporation has the $4 they raised from investors 1 & 2. Person 3 has $6 plus shares that he thinks are worth $4. But look whats happened here. Our little economy is actually worth more! Person 1 has $12 where he once had $10. Person 2 has $8, but thinks hes worth $12. Our corporation still has the cash of $4. And person 3 has $6 plus the shares worth $4. So our corporation can invest the $4 in its operations, person 1 has benefited from his investment by increasing his net worth by 20%, person 2 is worth 20% more (at least on paper) and person 3 is where he started but hopes the corporation will make wise investments so he can benefit like investor 1 did.

I think I got all those numbers right there. So, zero sum isnt the right description in that a stock market can actually increase the overall wealth of its participants (at least on paper)Also, I basically just described QE where people bid up stock prices without the underlying corporations actually changing anything. The economy is technically worth more, but that could be a mirage for all we know. This societys obsession with unrealized stock market wealth is, quite frankly, absurd and misguided. Its a real-time example of counting your chickens before they hatch.

Got a comment or question? Feel free to contact Cullen via email here or on Twitter here.