Zack,
Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Real estate values in the Hills will no doubt have its ups and downs; >> but there are plenty of people who would like to live there who don't >> live there now that I'd be confident of a timely resurgence of values. >> >> > > Values Schmalues, we're supposed to be talking about Total Wealth, > whether by your definition or mine. We have no disagreement about > Market Values, as I have stated over and over, so that is moot. > > I have carefully stated over and over that I am talking about what > originally brought this subject up: An alleged SUDDEN loss of Wealth > (HIS WORD) that Hugh Hewitt (and the Senator) claimed occurred in a > few hours by Stock Market "Losses". > > The question is whether or not there is a real Loss of Wealth, > OVERALL, TAKING EVERYONE INTO ACCOUNT, in an instant, merely by a Free > Trade. What might (or might not) happen next month is irrelevant. > I think we can agree, in this case, that wealth, however we define it, didn't 'suddenly' vanish overnight. What happened, more or less 'suddenly', is that we recognize (because of new or more broadly available information) that certain things we thought correctly valued were, instead, rather less valuable. In truth, those things never actually held the value we originally expected. As prosaic, really, as if you pony up $50,000 for a car expecting it to serve you well for ten years and it begins to self-destruct at year two, you may 'suddenly' realize the car was less valuable than you had confidently anticipated. Bummer. Sure, nothing has really changed: the seller got your fifty grand; you got their lousy car. You still feel a 'loss' and you're still aggrieved even if you eventually decide you should have exercised greater 'due diligence.' G.
