3 ms·
If you interpret 'indication' broadly enough to allow plenty false positives and false negatives, then sure. But surely you would agree that a stronger formulat
by Thiez 3y ago
If you interpret 'indication' broadly enough to allow plenty false positives and false negatives, then sure. But surely you would agree that a stronger formulation (high price must mean high value / low price must mean low value) would be false, yes?
- WalterBright 3y ago> (high price must mean high value / low price must mean low value) would be false, yes? The price the seller sets is the seller's idea of its value. The price the buyer bids is the buyers' idea of its value. When those prices are the same, and an exchange takes place, that price is the value of the item to both of them at that moment.
- Thiez 3y agoTo me that seems complete nonsense. I have sold stuff for more than the minimum price I would have accepted, and bought stuff for less than the maximum I would have paid. This must happen all the time, and there must be many transactions where the price that ends up being paid doesn't match the value assigned by both the buyer and the seller. Your story seems like a frictionless spherical cows in a vacuum kind of economics theory.
- WalterBright 3y agoI once had my property assessed for quite a bit above market value. I offered to sell it to the county tax assessor for about 10% below what he assessed it at, saying that if its value was really what he assessed it at, he could make a fat profit flipping it. He didn't take the offer. That's what a "nonsense" value is - a price nobody is willing to part with their own money to pay for it.