> How do we measure that it is really worth $30,000? It is not a question of what it is really worth (which is rather meaningless as nothing has some kind of a

> How do we measure that it is really worth $30,000? It is not a question of what it is really worth (which is rather meaningless as nothing has some kind of absolute worth that is written into the cosmos), only what people see it as worth and are willing to pay. > Maybe that's true, but TSLA stock has been worth anything from $200 to $1400 in the past few years. Of course. The perception of value of a given thing is naturally going to change from person to person and from moment to moment. In this case we're talking about moment to moment. Because it was worth $30,000 to someone last year does not necessarily mean it is worth $30,000 to them today, as their knowledge has changed. But, if the perception of value has declined, the question is: What has changed? > But the cost to produce it should be lower Even if it were free to produce, if it is worth $30,000, then it would be logical to charge $30,000. Input costs are irrelevant. To emphasize that point, it could cost $30,000 to produce, but if people only want to pay $20,000 you can't charge $30,000. You're going to lose money. People lose money producing things all the time. Input costs are irrelevant.