4 ms·

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 i

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.
- mhluongo 10y ago
  Alternative conclusion- I'm exhausted by this conversation, and don't want to continue it. It has little to do with your argument and everything to do with the way you're arguing.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    > It has little to do with your argument and everything to do with the way you're arguing. Sure that's a valid possibility. But my hypothesis is valid as well. One thing is solid though: Your statement is a subliminal personal attack on the "way" I "argue" and has nothing to do with the argument itself. Perhaps another alternative conclusion is that you have no way of continuing the discussion because you have nothing solid left to say, so you decide to reframe the situation and end it with a cheap excuse that has nothing to do with the argument itself.

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.

mhluongo 10y ago
Alternative conclusion- I'm exhausted by this conversation, and don't want to continue it. It has little to do with your argument and everything to do with the way you're arguing.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  > It has little to do with your argument and everything to do with the way you're arguing. Sure that's a valid possibility. But my hypothesis is valid as well. One thing is solid though: Your statement is a subliminal personal attack on the "way" I "argue" and has nothing to do with the argument itself. Perhaps another alternative conclusion is that you have no way of continuing the discussion because you have nothing solid left to say, so you decide to reframe the situation and end it with a cheap excuse that has nothing to do with the argument itself.