3 ms·

"but ultimately each person values what they're buying differently than the next person" that is true, but irrelevant. On average, overall value is highly cor

"but ultimately each person values what they're buying differently than the next person" that is true, but irrelevant. On average, overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics. so, this is why this conversation started. Price, including price of bitcoin, is not simply some subjective thing - it must be tied to some objective indicators. For example, price of coffee at Starbucks cannot be too far above what it costs to make coffee at home. It will be higher, since you are paying for convenience. But there is only so much that makes sense to pay for convenience and people won't pay more than that.

sbenitoj 9y ago
This was your original comment in this thread: "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." You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? First you say it's objective, now you're saying it's just highly correlated? Those aren't the same things -- if objective metrics were all that mattered, value would be 100% tied to the objective metrics/features, but it's not. If objective metrics were all that mattered, you could ALWAYS create something bigger, faster, or stronger and have it sell for more than the next best item on the market -- but that's not how it works. There are NUMEROUS example of products which were "objectively" better but failed because people did not perceive their value to be high enough worth purchasing.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? it's both. You observe this high correlation, because objective metrics determine value. They do not account for 100% of it 100% of the time, only on average. I keep using the term "on average", I think you keep missing its significance.

sbenitoj 9y ago

This was your original comment in this thread: "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." You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? First you say it's objective, now you're saying it's just highly correlated? Those aren't the same things -- if objective metrics were all that mattered, value would be 100% tied to the objective metrics/features, but it's not. If objective metrics were all that mattered, you could ALWAYS create something bigger, faster, or stronger and have it sell for more than the next best item on the market -- but that's not how it works. There are NUMEROUS example of products which were "objectively" better but failed because people did not perceive their value to be high enough worth purchasing.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? it's both. You observe this high correlation, because objective metrics determine value. They do not account for 100% of it 100% of the time, only on average. I keep using the term "on average", I think you keep missing its significance.