Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:40 UTC
In the News "Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, died Saturday, weeks after heart surgery and days after his 82nd birthday on Aug. 5. Armstrong commanded the Apollo 11 spacecraft that landed on the moon on July 20, 1969, and he radioed back to Earth the historic news of 'one giant leap for mankind'. He spent nearly three hours walking on the moon with fellow astronaut Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin." Our thoughts are with his family and friends. Such a great man. The world lost a true legendary hero today. This man will be an inspiration for generations to come.
Thread beginning with comment 532523
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by kwan_e on Mon 27th Aug 2012 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"[q]Earth and the universe did fine for billions of years without any money.


And yet, money emerged. The earth and the universe obviously had a need for money.
"

No. Just several people had a need for money. [/q]

Are people not part of the Earth and the universe?

* Hint: just because the universe has no need for money doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. The universe has no need for life either. You can't argue about the need for properties which are emergent.

** This is not to say that money is perfect. I would say money needs to be subject to conservation laws like the rest of physical and biological laws. None of this "Company A is really worth $600 billion because the total of its shares at the current share price is worth $600 billion" nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Comment by MOS6510
by galvanash on Mon 27th Aug 2012 06:52 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

None of this "Company A is really worth $600 billion because the total of its shares at the current share price is worth $600 billion" nonsense.


How much is a piece of bread worth?

Whatever you are willing to pay for it...

How much is a share worth?

Whatever you are willing to pay for it...

Why do you continue to deny this simple truth? You seem to understand the concept of money, yet you think it doesn't apply to stock prices the same way it applies to everything else...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by MOS6510
by kwan_e on Mon 27th Aug 2012 08:21 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by MOS6510"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"None of this "Company A is really worth $600 billion because the total of its shares at the current share price is worth $600 billion" nonsense.


How much is a piece of bread worth?

Whatever you are willing to pay for it...

How much is a share worth?

Whatever you are willing to pay for it...

Why do you continue to deny this simple truth? You seem to understand the concept of money, yet you think it doesn't apply to stock prices the same way it applies to everything else...
"

Wrong on so many levels. What you've highlighted is that money is a PROXY measure for how much something is worth. It's an ESTIMATE. It is not reality.

FACT: Everybody on this planet has to eat and drink.

Ultimately, all money needs to be converted to food and water. The calculation may be exceptionally complex. Ultimately, people are going to have to make that calculation. They make that calculation every time they buy food and drink and houses and petrol and electricity and gas and they compare that to their budget. This is why stock prices crash every once in a while - people realize they can no longer afford it. That value at the end of the crash? That is what people REALLY think something is worth.

FACT: Some things are more price elastic than others. Some costs are more variable than others.

The value it had before the crash is an illusion that people buy into hoping to cash out before the illusion pops. Why do you persist in this nonsense New Age bullshit that reality is whatever people think it is? You're over 40. Stop it.

Reply Parent Score: 3