3 ms·

People who blindly read textbooks, as well as anyone with real world market experience. If you believe in economic value as an objective truth, and not based on

People who blindly read textbooks, as well as anyone with real world market experience. If you believe in economic value as an objective truth, and not based on the subjective view of a buyer or seller, we have no common ground to continue this discussion.

crimsonalucard 10y ago
We do have common ground. The common ground is exactly as you say: real world people with real market experience. But before I get into that real world example... you just threatened to end the discussion if I disagree with you. This is weak. I am telling you I can end this argument not on a mere disagreement... I can end this argument with factual, non-subjective evidence that will prove you wrong. Now, onto the real world example: Warren Buffet, arguably one of the most successful investors on the planet. Warren Buffet operates on a investment strategy known as investing on intrinsic value. In other words he believes that the market fluctuations of a stock price by the daily subjective valuations of day traders are meaningless, he peers beyond the noise and picks stocks based off of a very real economic concept called "intrinsic value" or a true value separate from the subjective valuations of people. Intrinsic value is a very real and actual concept. Warren Buffet believes it and many many other real world and experienced investors follow the strategy as well. See sources below: This link is solid proof intrinsic value exists as a theory in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value This link shows intrinsic value applied in finance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) This link shows intrinsic value applied as a stock investment strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing This is a biography on warren buffet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett Academia and "most people" are not unanimously sided with you. The above argument is solid proof. This is not a mere disagreement and if you end the discussion here it's an admission of total and utter loss.
- mhluongo 10y ago
  Quick thoughts: You didn't provide any "non-subjective evidence" - you just reframed what you think my position is to knock it down. I'm familiar with value investing. It's not clear to me why you believe the occasional success of value investors is proof in inherent value as a universal economic truth. I haven't claimed anything about value other than that it's subjective- that doesn't preclude, for example, a company's perceived value relying on a number of other subjective values. Anyway, again, I don't think we're getting anywhere here, and I think framing a discussion as requiring "admission of total and utter loss" to leave is childish and the hallmark of a troll. I'm equal parts embarrassed and impressed that I've been strung along this long.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    Non subjective evidence? I gave you actual sources and actual real world people who use the concept in the "real world". Actual sources and actual people is not subjective evidence. These are things that directly contradict your statements. >I'm familiar with value investing. It's not clear to me why you believe the occasional success of value investors is proof in inherent value as a universal economic truth. Occasional success? I gave you a person who has year after year of success for around 50 years. There is no quantitative way of expressing this unparalleled success rate as "occasional success." Also what is a universal economic truth? There is no such thing. Economics is a soft science which consists of a bunch of varying theoretical models and schools of thought, none of which (like all science.) can ever be fully "proven" as a universal truth. I presume you are actually asking whether or not intrinsic value is valid school of thought in the academic landscape? It is. See the economic definition of intrinsic value in the link I posted above. Or google it. >I haven't claimed anything about value other than that it's subjective- that doesn't preclude, for example, a company's perceived value relying on a number of other subjective values. Perceived value is subjective and therefore according to your definition a logical interpretation of value. There are many cases where the "Perceived value" of a company is different from the the sum of its parts or other "subjective valuations" in which the company is built upon. This leads to an inherit contradiction in the subjective theory of valuation. Meaning that a company has two different values: The subjective value of the company as a whole and the subjective value of the company as a sum of its parts. A contradiction indicates that this is a highly flawed way of thinking about valuation. >to leave is childish and the hallmark of a troll. You insulted me and called me a troll. Am I being the one being childish? I am simply stating facts. If you leave saying we have no subjective common ground when I only offer hard facts. The only logical conclusion is that you are trying to exit the conversation because you have no hard facts to prove your point.

crimsonalucard 10y ago

We do have common ground. The common ground is exactly as you say: real world people with real market experience. But before I get into that real world example... you just threatened to end the discussion if I disagree with you. This is weak. I am telling you I can end this argument not on a mere disagreement... I can end this argument with factual, non-subjective evidence that will prove you wrong. Now, onto the real world example: Warren Buffet, arguably one of the most successful investors on the planet. Warren Buffet operates on a investment strategy known as investing on intrinsic value. In other words he believes that the market fluctuations of a stock price by the daily subjective valuations of day traders are meaningless, he peers beyond the noise and picks stocks based off of a very real economic concept called "intrinsic value" or a true value separate from the subjective valuations of people. Intrinsic value is a very real and actual concept. Warren Buffet believes it and many many other real world and experienced investors follow the strategy as well. See sources below: This link is solid proof intrinsic value exists as a theory in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value This link shows intrinsic value applied in finance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) This link shows intrinsic value applied as a stock investment strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing This is a biography on warren buffet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett Academia and "most people" are not unanimously sided with you. The above argument is solid proof. This is not a mere disagreement and if you end the discussion here it's an admission of total and utter loss.

mhluongo 10y ago
Quick thoughts: You didn't provide any "non-subjective evidence" - you just reframed what you think my position is to knock it down. I'm familiar with value investing. It's not clear to me why you believe the occasional success of value investors is proof in inherent value as a universal economic truth. I haven't claimed anything about value other than that it's subjective- that doesn't preclude, for example, a company's perceived value relying on a number of other subjective values. Anyway, again, I don't think we're getting anywhere here, and I think framing a discussion as requiring "admission of total and utter loss" to leave is childish and the hallmark of a troll. I'm equal parts embarrassed and impressed that I've been strung along this long.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  Non subjective evidence? I gave you actual sources and actual real world people who use the concept in the "real world". Actual sources and actual people is not subjective evidence. These are things that directly contradict your statements. >I'm familiar with value investing. It's not clear to me why you believe the occasional success of value investors is proof in inherent value as a universal economic truth. Occasional success? I gave you a person who has year after year of success for around 50 years. There is no quantitative way of expressing this unparalleled success rate as "occasional success." Also what is a universal economic truth? There is no such thing. Economics is a soft science which consists of a bunch of varying theoretical models and schools of thought, none of which (like all science.) can ever be fully "proven" as a universal truth. I presume you are actually asking whether or not intrinsic value is valid school of thought in the academic landscape? It is. See the economic definition of intrinsic value in the link I posted above. Or google it. >I haven't claimed anything about value other than that it's subjective- that doesn't preclude, for example, a company's perceived value relying on a number of other subjective values. Perceived value is subjective and therefore according to your definition a logical interpretation of value. There are many cases where the "Perceived value" of a company is different from the the sum of its parts or other "subjective valuations" in which the company is built upon. This leads to an inherit contradiction in the subjective theory of valuation. Meaning that a company has two different values: The subjective value of the company as a whole and the subjective value of the company as a sum of its parts. A contradiction indicates that this is a highly flawed way of thinking about valuation. >to leave is childish and the hallmark of a troll. You insulted me and called me a troll. Am I being the one being childish? I am simply stating facts. If you leave saying we have no subjective common ground when I only offer hard facts. The only logical conclusion is that you are trying to exit the conversation because you have no hard facts to prove your point.