I don't think it is off-topic, because I think this is one of the connotations and associations of what constitutes "gambling" in most people's minds, even though you may not find it in a dictionary definition. In addition to the idea of uncertain outcomes, is the idea that the bets are manufactured purely for the sake of profit or loss, and there is no auxilliary redeeming quality to them (as opposed to, say, opening a store which provides products to customers.)
You are now coloring a definition with your own bias. Connotations and associations are just that. They are not valid definitions. Different people have different connotations and associations. Definitions remain the same. A previous respondent suggested that running a fund is rendering a service. However, even at the most basic level you are offering a service by taking the opposite side of someone else's trade. If he was looking for a fill and you provided it, then you have rendered a service. This is irrespective of whether he was speculating ("gambling!") or hedging. The nature of your accommodation of his need remains the same. If you have a bone to pick, you may wish to redefine telemarketers who over promote inferior goods and more often than not leave a trail of unhappy customers. You may wish to revisit televangelists who prey on the gullible to fill their coffers and finance their lavish lifestyles. And what about retailers and lenders who help financially overextended people take on even more debt to buy yet another of the latest doodads? Are they doing the customer any favors? Yes, the consumer was not forced to buy, but he was aggressively and mercilessly marketed. And please don't get me started on the legal profession and all of its shades of gray. The list goes on. However, as a trader, what you are giving the "customer" on the other side of your trade is exactly what he wanted...a fill. There was no cajoling or endless marketing involved. The redeeming quality, as you refer to it, is the collective liquidity that traders provide which allow the capital markets to operate. Without that grassroots service, capitalism would be compromised. And if you are running a fund and you are good at it, then you are assuredly rendering a service to your clients. You see? Connotations and associations are pliable.
No, I am coloring the definition with the common bias. This thread is about people's reactions to telling them you're a trader. I am offering what I believe to be some of the reasons why they may react negatively. It really has little to do with what my biases are. So called "valid definitions" are quite irrelevant to how people respond to the idea that you are a trader or what the dictionary definition of "gambling" is. I suppose that has merit on some level, in the same way that a casino is providing a service for those who wish to gamble on roulette or craps. But that seems a little thin, and certainly doesn't get around the fact that the transaction is zero or negative sum. No need to get defensive. I certainly never said there weren't any other professions that were dishonest, unethical, or non-productive. You believe capitalism would be compromised without, say, a liquid index futures market?
Are we now down to picking and choosing which markets or products we can do without? Let me know when you get down to tobacco, liquor, soda pop, confectionery and SUVs.
Really? I don't see how. You asked whether capitalism would be compromised without, say, a liquid index futures market. I merely suggested that if you wanted to pick and choose which markets or products capitalism could do without, that you start with those that I personally consider to be at the bottom of the "need" list. Any other interpretation, connotation or association is entirely your own.
The clear implication is that they are comparable, i.e., the "junk" of capitalism that we could do without.
Not at all! That is entirely your biased inference. I merely suggested another direction you may embark upon if you wish to pick and choose. If anything, I am suggesting a difference rather than a similarity. But we need not get into it any further. Evidently, you have an aversion of some kind to trading. That is entirely your prerogative. Edit: To be fair, upon reflection, I can understand how you may have arrived at that inference. However, I assure you that this is not what I was implying.