6 ms·

Agreed - for an article in MSM, I was surprised it wasn't completely terrible! But I'm tired of the BS line that "gold has no value" continues to be repeated a

Agreed - for an article in MSM, I was surprised it wasn't completely terrible! But I'm tired of the BS line that "gold has no value" continues to be repeated as nauseam. If people value it, then it has value. If people don't, then it doesn't. End of story. Things don't have value because some Minister of Value makes a proclamation about what has value and what doesn't (USSR tried that, didn't work!)

vasilipupkin 9y ago
that's not quite the case. There is such a thing as objective value. Stocks have objective value because they pay dividends. Real estate in warm climates has objective value because it's pleasant to be in a warm place in winter. BMW costs more than a honda civic because it is objectively a better driving experience. Etc. Etc. So, no, it's not true that there is no objective value
- ktta 9y ago
  Each one of your cases can be debunked. Stocks only have value when SEC deems that it can have value. There are people who would love to live in a cold climate for whom land in a warm climate has no value. BMW costs more than Honda because people are willing to pay that much for it, which is how BMW sets the price. All of your cases are about subjective value. Take out the buyer with personal interests on the other side of the transaction and see if it has any value. A good test is to take what you think has value and move 10000 years into the future or the past and consider if everyone you encounter will value it. Do you think it will have value? If not, then no, it doesn't have any 'objective' value.
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    Bingo!
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    ehhhh, no. Stocks do not only have value when SEC deems that it can have value. That is completely incorrect. SEC simply regulates equity issuance, it doesn't set the price of each stock. BMW costs more than honda because it is objectively a better car. By objectively identifiable metrics. Yes, it's true there are some people who love cold climates. But in the US people are moving from cold climates to warmer climates, on average - so real estate in warmer climates is growing in value faster. So, no, you are completely wrong.
    - ktta 9y ago
      > SEC ... doesn't set the price of each stock No it doesn't, but SEC has the power to allow the stock to get traded in the first place. So the value is subject to SEC's presence. If there is no SEC, there is no 'stock' for you to get dividends from. > BMW costs more than honda because it is objectively a better car. By objectively identifiable metrics. You discount the people do don't give care about the objective metrics. There's a lot of personal preference involved when one chooses a car to buy (apart from buying power). >But in the US people are moving from cold climates to warmer climates, on average Last time I checked, US has of 4% of the world's population. I'd wager more than 4% of the world would love to move to a colder climate. >So, no, you are completely wrong. I don't think any of the facts I've stated are. If you're talking about my opinion that there is only subjective value, well, that's subjective too :)
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        Not correct. The price of the stock times shares outstanding is its value. Where does this value come from? Why are Apple and google doing so well? It's not, by your logic, because they are great companies - that would be an objective metric, no? Existence of the SEC doesn't make stock values subjective. Any argument here that starts with "some people" - is irrelevant. Everything we are discussing is about on average, statistically. On average, a beachfront condo in Miami will cost more than an equivalent condo in Iowa. Why? Because it's on the beach and people, on average, value that more than being somewhere in Iowa
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Price is what people pay, value is what they get, and it's completely subjective. The only reason people pay more for a BMW than a Honda is because they perceive they're getting more value with a BMW than with a Honda. There is no such thing as an "objectively better driving experience" -- all value is derived from perception, and perception is individual.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    Yes, but price that people are willing to pay is highly correlated to the value they get. And they tend to pay more for things that have some objectively better properties. Which is why tesla model s can sell for more than Honda Civic.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    eehhhh. No. People prefer faster cars on average over slower cars. that's an objective metric - one car is slower than the other. They don't just perceive it. If they simply perceived it, you could launch an advertising campaign and convince them that they should pay more for the Honda. But they won't.
    - sbenitoj 9y ago
      The maximum speed or acceleration abilities of a car are objective metrics, but how much people actually value those things is subjective. Value is subjective, each person values the same objective metrics differently (e.g. soccer moms generally don't value sports cars as much as single guys, if they did then we'd see a bunch of soccer moms driving their kids around in sports).
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        yes, but a faster car with all other features being equal gives you objectively more features. There is a reason BMW costs more than a Honda civic. Right? Or else, if there is no reason whatsoever, Honda should be able to advertise in a clever manner and sell that Honda civic for the same price as a BMW 7 series or a Tesla. I mean if it's all subjective, right? But we can all agree that no matter what a Honda civic will cost less than a tesla. Yes?
polotics 9y ago
Bloomberg is "MSM" now? Are you sure?
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Ha, well, more mainstream than Reddit, Twitter, and HN!

vasilipupkin 9y ago

that's not quite the case. There is such a thing as objective value. Stocks have objective value because they pay dividends. Real estate in warm climates has objective value because it's pleasant to be in a warm place in winter. BMW costs more than a honda civic because it is objectively a better driving experience. Etc. Etc. So, no, it's not true that there is no objective value

ktta 9y ago
Each one of your cases can be debunked. Stocks only have value when SEC deems that it can have value. There are people who would love to live in a cold climate for whom land in a warm climate has no value. BMW costs more than Honda because people are willing to pay that much for it, which is how BMW sets the price. All of your cases are about subjective value. Take out the buyer with personal interests on the other side of the transaction and see if it has any value. A good test is to take what you think has value and move 10000 years into the future or the past and consider if everyone you encounter will value it. Do you think it will have value? If not, then no, it doesn't have any 'objective' value.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Bingo!
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  ehhhh, no. Stocks do not only have value when SEC deems that it can have value. That is completely incorrect. SEC simply regulates equity issuance, it doesn't set the price of each stock. BMW costs more than honda because it is objectively a better car. By objectively identifiable metrics. Yes, it's true there are some people who love cold climates. But in the US people are moving from cold climates to warmer climates, on average - so real estate in warmer climates is growing in value faster. So, no, you are completely wrong.
  - ktta 9y ago
    > SEC ... doesn't set the price of each stock No it doesn't, but SEC has the power to allow the stock to get traded in the first place. So the value is subject to SEC's presence. If there is no SEC, there is no 'stock' for you to get dividends from. > BMW costs more than honda because it is objectively a better car. By objectively identifiable metrics. You discount the people do don't give care about the objective metrics. There's a lot of personal preference involved when one chooses a car to buy (apart from buying power). >But in the US people are moving from cold climates to warmer climates, on average Last time I checked, US has of 4% of the world's population. I'd wager more than 4% of the world would love to move to a colder climate. >So, no, you are completely wrong. I don't think any of the facts I've stated are. If you're talking about my opinion that there is only subjective value, well, that's subjective too :)
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      Not correct. The price of the stock times shares outstanding is its value. Where does this value come from? Why are Apple and google doing so well? It's not, by your logic, because they are great companies - that would be an objective metric, no? Existence of the SEC doesn't make stock values subjective. Any argument here that starts with "some people" - is irrelevant. Everything we are discussing is about on average, statistically. On average, a beachfront condo in Miami will cost more than an equivalent condo in Iowa. Why? Because it's on the beach and people, on average, value that more than being somewhere in Iowa
sbenitoj 9y ago
Price is what people pay, value is what they get, and it's completely subjective. The only reason people pay more for a BMW than a Honda is because they perceive they're getting more value with a BMW than with a Honda. There is no such thing as an "objectively better driving experience" -- all value is derived from perception, and perception is individual.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  Yes, but price that people are willing to pay is highly correlated to the value they get. And they tend to pay more for things that have some objectively better properties. Which is why tesla model s can sell for more than Honda Civic.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  eehhhh. No. People prefer faster cars on average over slower cars. that's an objective metric - one car is slower than the other. They don't just perceive it. If they simply perceived it, you could launch an advertising campaign and convince them that they should pay more for the Honda. But they won't.
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    The maximum speed or acceleration abilities of a car are objective metrics, but how much people actually value those things is subjective. Value is subjective, each person values the same objective metrics differently (e.g. soccer moms generally don't value sports cars as much as single guys, if they did then we'd see a bunch of soccer moms driving their kids around in sports).
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      yes, but a faster car with all other features being equal gives you objectively more features. There is a reason BMW costs more than a Honda civic. Right? Or else, if there is no reason whatsoever, Honda should be able to advertise in a clever manner and sell that Honda civic for the same price as a BMW 7 series or a Tesla. I mean if it's all subjective, right? But we can all agree that no matter what a Honda civic will cost less than a tesla. Yes?

polotics 9y ago

Bloomberg is "MSM" now? Are you sure?

sbenitoj 9y ago
Ha, well, more mainstream than Reddit, Twitter, and HN!