If the trading market is merely a redistribution of wealth among participants, then its long-term existence should have long been questioned. But this understanding overlooks a more fundamental aspect—the market is actually a connector between the financial sector and the real economy. Even if the trading process inevitably leads to misallocation of resources, its core mission remains to direct funds to where they can create the most value.



History provides us with the answer. In the 19th century, the United States financed the construction of its railway network through capital markets. This was not just about stockholders making money, but about the entire national economy becoming integrated. Fast forward to today, China supports tech startups through a multi-tiered capital market, with technology-related loans growing at over 30% by 2023. These cases demonstrate a principle: when funds truly flow to places that can generate wealth, the market shifts from "I earn, you lose" to "everyone earns"—companies receive capital to expand production, investors share in growth, and society’s total wealth increases.

The problem is that imbalance indeed exists. Before the 2008 US financial crisis, the derivatives market had already exceeded the size of actual GDP, with money circulating in the virtual economy. The A-shares market experienced a similar phase, with funds piling into small-cap stocks and junk stocks, eventually detaching from the real economy to pursue pure speculation. This disconnection between finance and the real economy is the true cause of the worsening zero-sum game.

How to break the deadlock? It relies on institutional design to correct it. On the financing side, screening mechanisms should filter out truly valuable companies, preventing shell companies from siphoning funds; on the investment side, long-term funds like pension funds should be cultivated, and short-term speculation suppressed; internationally, the German model of close cooperation between banks and enterprises is also worth learning from. Ultimately, the market’s purpose is not to eliminate zero-sum games but to regulate them through rules so that they remain within society’s capacity to bear, allowing finance to truly become the "heart" of the economy.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
GamefiEscapeArtistvip
· 2h ago
Well said, the key is to have real industry support; money just circulating without backing will eventually collapse. The logic is sound, but I'm just worried that the institutional design can't keep up. The 2008 wave was indeed tragic; virtual economy was too detached from the real economy. Pension funds are the right path; long-term holding is the only way to stability. A-shares still need to improve the listing review process; no more empty shells allowed to come in and harvest retail investors. The German model is indeed worth learning from; the relationship between banks and enterprises is much closer. It's easy to say, but execution is the real challenge.
View OriginalReply0
CantAffordPancakevip
· 2h ago
Honestly, without a good financing system for screening, no matter how many railway stories there are, it's all in vain. --- Shell companies exploiting resources definitely need to be regulated; otherwise, it's just nakedly cutting the leeks. --- The idea of a pension fund is good; long-term capital inflow is necessary to stabilize the market. --- The issue of virtual economy idle circulation was seen back in 2008. We must truly learn from the lessons. --- Financial health is important, but it must be ensured that it's not about bloodsucking, but about providing blood. --- The German model sounds reliable; close cooperation between banks and enterprises indeed reduces disconnection. --- Ultimately, it still depends on where the money flows; if it flows to the right places, profits are made; if it flows to the wrong places, it’s a cut. --- The problem isn't with the market itself but whether the rules are truly designed to protect the real economy. --- China's sci-tech innovation financing growth rate exceeding 30% sounds good, but I'm worried it might just be impressive numbers with actual idle circulation.
View OriginalReply0
StablecoinAnxietyvip
· 2h ago
Basically, it's a matter of system design. Relying on regulation to prevent shell companies from siphoning blood really needs to be strengthened.
View OriginalReply0
CoffeeNFTradervip
· 2h ago
Well said, the key is to let the money flow to places that can truly create value, and not just another round of pure speculation.
View OriginalReply0
gas_fee_traumavip
· 3h ago
It sounds nice, but I just want to ask—how much money is really flowing into the real economy now? Most of it is still just hype and speculation. The German system does seem to have some merit, but can our system be effectively implemented here? The analogy of shell companies draining blood is spot on. Who will actually be the gatekeeper? Long-term funds sound good, but the problem is retail investors still need to survive. The market's "heart" theory is good, but I'm just worried that if the heart fails, everyone will be finished.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)