Oh, man; perhaps the tempest in the teapot was even less significant than it seemed.
G. Zack Bass wrote: > Just so. Thank you. > But I think you overqualify a bit. It is not necessarily that the > "Real" value of the things was less than we expected. We do not need > to make ANY assumption about the "Real" value in order to understand > this. The only thing that matters is that some people CHANGED THEIR > MINDS about how valuable the "things" were. > > (1) Maybe they decided they were worth MORE than before, and thus the > "Market Value" increased. > (1)(A) Maybe they were correct, and the "Real" value WAS greater than > thought. > (1)(B) Maybe they were mistaken, and the "Real" value was NOT greater > than thought. > > (2) Maybe they decided they were worth LESS than before, and thus the > "Market Value" Decreased. > (2)(A) Maybe they were correct, and the "Real" value WAS less than > thought. > (2)(B) Maybe they were mistaken, and the "Real" value was NOT less > than thought. > > In all four instances, the result is the same: Market Value changes > in response to an Internal Mental State, without any change in Wealth > - whether the Internal Mental State is delusional or realistic. This > happens regardless of whether some kind of Inflation or other process > is responsible for making the Internal Mental State inaccurate and now > the Mental State realizes its mistake (the Mistake might be the New > opinion, not the Old one; makes no difference). > > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
