Re: For anyone that doesn't already know

[Richard Harrison <richard_harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matt Crampton wrote:

> > This is actually a little scary...  Their stock value has NO BASIS IN REALITY!

> There are a few people on this list that could probably answer this better than
> I...

The problem of the meaning of "value" is too deep and wide for this list, pard. The
original post implies a belief in a constant basis for value (value is always
relative and mutable) - incorrect premises beget questionable conclusions (GIGO for
us simple-minded, computer folk). The whole notion of "value" in most most western
civ.'s is tied to commodities, e.g., gold - silliness of high order. Value is what
we (as humans on the average) agree that it is...we've been "agreeing" about gold
for a long time, and, as an unfortunate result, lots o' folks think that gold (or
other "real" commodities) can always serve as "measuring sticks." Worse still, there
is a belief system that there is SOME concrete commodity which CAN serve as a
value-yardstick,  if only we're smart enough to find it.

That's an abstract of a thumbnail sketch of a snapshot of the issue - try hooking up
with an economist or a General Semanticist some time, if you as a private individual
want to gain a close-to-facts notion of "value" that isn't un-sane.

With respect to what went on with this stock, you absolutely correctly captured the
pertinent issues in your post.

TTFN,
Richard