generalTsao
- 7 comments
- 1 likes given
- 5 likes received
Bio not provided
There is one more argument here - the value perception.
For a person sitting in US, with access to all kinds of resources, a free / cheap MIT course might not sound so appealing. But for a person sitting in a village in India, who has absolutely no resources, accept for some "magical" connectivity to the whole wide world, online courses are like a second coming.
Just to illustrate the point, walking down a street in South Bay or Berkeley you see all these fruit trees with their fruit falling and rotting away. No one cares about them accept for their aesthetic value (that too questioned by many who have to deal with rotting fruit on the streets). But the idea of the fruit from that tree rotting away would sound crazy to the majority of the humanity!
I don't want to work too much on this argument (and a 'better' person would have done a much better job) but I hope you get the point.
"Romney, and many of his supporters, value making money for money's sake, not for adding value to society"
This assertion presupposes that the society is so dumb that it will let Romney and his ilk to make money without adding any value. Perhaps consider how impossible a task it is for you or any one person (or a group of people) to determine what is valuable for the society.
(yes I am going back to Adman Smith here. Nothing I say is ever original).
OK now that the conversation is going into taxes - here is the deal.
I will pay 70% of my income (from whatever means) as taxes as along as the govt. promises to burn the money they collect. I know that I will not be able to spend most of money I earn in my life time so someone taking away the money is really a moot point.
My fear/problem is not taxes or what is 'fair share' but an economy where more than 50% of people become 'rent seekers'. Once a democracy has crossed that threshold, only a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions can bring back the balance.
@eringriffith I think we mostly agree. The only other point I will make is that $100BN+ valuation already has priced in almost nonsensical earnings expectations for the next few quarters. Unless Facebook solves world's hunger, does away with all nuclear weapons and reduces the global temperature by a couple of degrees, I really don't see how anything else they come out with, will satisfy the people who have grudgingly accepted this valuation.
" no matter how little something like earnings expectations have to do with a company’s actual value as an investment"
a few problems with this statement, perhaps?
1. What do you mean by 'actual value as an investment'? The only value as an investment is based on your perception of how much the stock is going to rise or fall (we can safely assume that they won't be doling out dividend any time soon).
2. So if 'actual value as an investment' is what I think you mean in point #1 then earnings expectations have EVERYTHING to do with the price of the stock. That's the only quantifiable way you can price the stock. Of-course, most times, the 'irrational exuberance' works its way up from irrational price of stock to irrational earnings expectations to justify the said price of the stock.
(sorry, I am writing this for the one person who will understand this...maybe).
"And ass time goes on, that right erodes, so the net is the same"
"ass time" - I thought it was a family friendly blog!
consider taking ESL lessons to understand what Lovey was trying to say.
Let me help you - She/he was using SARCASM to diss the article.
Further elaboration -> she DID NOT agree with the articles seemingly underlying insinuations, if there were any...