How does the world - in aggregate - generate a non-zero return?
I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from?  In the modern economy, most money takes   the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is   often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is   through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan,   it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating   new money.  This description of how money is created differs from the   story found in some economics textbooks. It appears that you have bought into the Communist lie.  Milton Friedman lats it all out so well. No transaction ever occurs unless both sides in the transaction benefit.  Let's say you are out for a walk. While walking you feel hungry. You find two quarters ($0.50) in your pocket. You enter the nearest convenience store and look for a snack cake to buy. You find a Twinky selling for 40 cents. You pay for the Twinky and leave the store while eating it. You also leave with a dime in your pocket.  To you the Twinky is worth 50 cents as you would have paid what you had to obtain one. So made 10 cents profit on the deal. The shopkeeper sold his merchandise for 40 cents but it only cost him 25 cents to obtain the Twinky. He made 15 cents profit on the deal.  You wanted the snack more than you wanted the money. The shopkeeper wanted the money more than the snack. You both got what you valued more. You both profited by the transaction.  That is why Capitalism works. Value (worth)  is in the eye of the beholder.  Remember: no transaction occurs unless both sides profit.  Edit: once again I ask: if you give me a negative vote please explain with a comment.
"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments?  Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a ""resource"" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008.   So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers..." I'd say that the assets are 'invested' in non-productive sectors of the economy such as the finance sector. Also in pure market speculation and in revolving corporate acquisitions which inflate the nominal money supply but don't increase either physical production or services delivered by one thimble or one minute. "Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Not normally.* The stock market as a whole, on average, increases in value over time. So if we make the claim that the market is a zero-sum game, and you only make money if other people lose money, that idea is not sustainable. There aren't that many people that would keep investing in something only to continue to lose money to the ""winners."" The stock market, and the companies inside it, grow in value as the economy grows. And the economy grows as workers add value with their work.  Here's an analogy: I can buy a tree seed for very little and plant it in the ground. If I do nothing more, it probably won't grow, and it will be worth nothing. However, by taking the time to water it, fertilize it, weed it, prune it, and harvest it, I can sell the produce for much more than I purchased that seed for. No one lost money when I sell it; I increased the value by adding my effort.  If I sell that tree to a sawmill, they can cut the tree into usable lumber, and sell that lumber at a profit. They added their efforts and increased the value.  A carpenter can increase the value even further by making something useful (a door, for example). A retail store can make that door more useful by transporting it to a location with a buyer, and a builder can make it even more useful by installing it on a house.  No one lost any money in any of these transactions. They bought something valuable, and made it more valuable by adding their effort.  Companies in the stock market grow in value the same way. A company will grow in value as its employees produce things. An investor provides capital that the company uses to be able to produce things**, and as the company grows, it increases in value. As the population increases and more workers and customers are born, and as more useful things are invented, the economy will continue to grow as a whole.  * Certainly, it is possible, even common, to profit from someone else's loss.  People lose money in the stock market all the time.  But it doesn't have to be this way.  The stock market goes up, on average, over the long term, and so long term investors can continue to make money in the market even without profiting from others' failures. ** An investor that purchases a share from another investor does not directly provide capital to the company.  However, this second investor is rewarding the first investor who did provide capital to the company.  This is the reason that the first investor purchased in the first place; without the second investor, the first would have had no reason to invest and provide the capital.  Relating it to our tree analogy: Did the builder who installed the door help out the tree farmer?  After all, the tree farmer already sold the tree to the sawmill and doesn't care what happens to it after that.  However, if the builder had not needed a door, the sawmill would have had no reason to buy the tree." "You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing ""negative risk"" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness:  because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there." 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. While there certainly are many specific predictions that have proven completely wrong, the fundamental complaint is that the structure of our economy is unsustainable, with the prediction that this will eventually be revealed in a terrible way.  Simply pointing out that the day of reckoning has been staved off for the immediate future does nothing to address or rebut the actual complaint.  For example, we've been some 40 years now without a catastrophe attributable to global warming; should that be taken as indicative that the fundamental logic that predicts an eventual catastrophe is a load of bunk?  Should the reasonable advance prediction requirement be harder for economics than for a hard science? "&gt; Value is entirely subjective to individuals. Nothing has ""intrinsic value"".  Question: *Water, oxygen -- caveats to intrinsic value because they are that which is consumed by virtue of one's being alive and staying alive and are of limited supply?*  Can we expand on ""value"" and how it operates on the barest of essentials to sustain life.   To rephrase: [1] That the tripartite nature of the system of money--token (countable), vehicle (exchangeable), and repository (valuable)--depends on life existing ergo exist as conditions necessary for the creation of an economy but yet will be necessarily valued by the economy because of the projected increases in population, that is, future demand rising as function of the earthly supply means that the value of these goods can or cannot be projected and, more broadly, [2] how do economists evaluate the role of money in relation to timing, especially when it pertains to these unproduced or ""given"" yet essential goods and especially coupled with the knowledge that the population will continue to proliferate?  Really, I'm not trying to undermine or debunk or be plain ridiculous; I'm curious as to how economic theory will (or has begun to) try to solve a ""singularity"" (threshold) problem that has yet to occur but no doubt will?   Maybe it's an unfair question but even so, I'm sure someone on this thread might steer us towards a starting point. And I only ask because the economic breakdown by otherwiseyep and the discussion in the thread herein are, say, quite as substantial as they are clear." Correct, kept orange demand in a microcosm to simplify.  In the example, ~1 or 2 people would have been highly paid to build the machine, and the house would have created temp jobs for 2 or 3, or the money would have flowed to another tree owner and put into a bigger house.  Point is the new inflow of money hasnt cycled through the economy fast enough to have an effect on consumptive demand. New money has a slower velocity with net effect on inflating asset prices up. Question:  So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam,  it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash.  So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is.    And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary?   But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off?  You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system. none of which give a good return if the underlying economy is shit. the underlying economy will be shit if there hasn't been sufficient investment in more productive endeavors. if the underlying economy hasn't been sufficiently capitalized, that will present juicy returns to investors.   it's a complete substance-less threat that if we fail to continue to coddle the rentiers, the economy will collapse because they'll do X with their money (X being something other than maximizing return) "These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels:  1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018?  2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements.  3. The fundamental idea of ""investing"" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with ""investing"" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really ""invest"" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not.  Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday." "It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing ""creating value"" and ""producing something"". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out.   The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public.  &  The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with  100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system.  Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time." Great question. Surprisingly, stock returns and GDP growth are mostly unrelated. In fact, they are slightly inversely correlated when you look across countries. Consider a firm that earns $100 on average per year with zero growth. If investors apply a 10% discount rate to this firm, the company will have a market value of $100/10% = $1,000. If it continues to earn $100 per year, it will produce 10% returns despite zero growth in earnings. You can see that realized returns are largely a function of the return investors demand for putting their money in risky assets.  I say mostly unrelated because an increase in GDP growth may increase our firms earnings (though the relationship to earnings per share is muddied by new share issuances, buybacks, M&amp;A, etc.). But you can see from the above example that returns can vastly exceed growth in perpetuity. If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then  link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia. "I try to think of it as ""present money"" and ""future money.""  Right now there's still plenty of present money(present wealth): crops are growing, there's plenty of rubber steel glass and such being processed, people still need toothpaste, etc.  Stocks go way up when there's expectations in the marketplace for **future** earnings and production (profit).  Debt is issued (read:money is created) when banks and lenders think production and profits will increase in the future.  That future profit is what pays for the debt being issued (money being created) in the present.  They essentially borrow from the future to create money today, in exchange for a chunk of the future profits.    Right now there's so much doom and gloom that everybody thinks future production and future profits will just not be there, so nobody lends, nobody invests, and no money is created, and thus ""money"" just kinda disappears.    At least that's how I think about it.  Present wealth vs expectations of future wealth.  I'm probably wrong though; this stuff gives me a headache."