No, it wasn't. You'd fail any microeconomics 101 class with your reasoning.No, it was correct.
Learn economics. Your ignorance has become very tiresome.
No, it wasn't. You'd fail any microeconomics 101 class with your reasoning.No, it was correct.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^If you find enough people, willing to pay that price, then it's worth exactly that much.
When people start realising that it's undervalued/overvalued the market will adjust.
How difficult is that to understand?
No, it wasn't. You'd fail any microeconomics 101 class with your reasoning.
Learn economics. Your ignorance has become very tiresome.
If you find enough people, willing to pay that price, then it's worth exactly that much.
When people start realising that it's undervalued/overvalued the market will adjust.
How difficult is that to understand?
This is obviously a joke. You are bar none the worst poster on economics matters out of posters with 2,000+ posts on this forum.I did very well in micro and macro economics.
You might have a case that I have autism (I don't) but I don't think you even know what Aspergers is if you think I have it. You might as well post that I have menopause, or Alzheimers, that would make the same amount of sense.
I did very well in micro and macro economics.
![]()
By the way, Verlander has a no-hitter going in the 9th...
Verlander is a bum.
If you are setting the market price, then the stock isn't trading...I own 100% of LuLuLemon. Go try and get a price for less than $800.
If you are setting the market price, then the stock isn't trading...
This is obviously a joke. You are bar none the worst poster on economics matters out of posters with 2,000+ posts on this forum.
You might have a case that I have autism (I don't) but I don't think you even know what Aspergers is if you think I have it. You might as well post that I have menopause, or Alzheimers, that would make the same amount of sense.
My point is, the value is whatever the market determines it is, even if it doesn't make sense.
This is obviously a joke. You are bar none the worst poster on economics matters out of posters with 2,000+ posts on this forum.
To boot, you're a Ron Paul fan who doesn't understand his economics.
You might have a case that I have autism (I don't) but I don't think you even know what Aspergers is if you think I have it. You might as well post that I have menopause, or Alzheimers, that would make the same amount of sense.
Just call me a poopy head and be done with it. Another great argument!!!
I'm not arguing for or against UG, but you don't have to understand Ron Pauls economics to support him or his economic plan. You can know enough about his other positions to have faith that what he's saying about economics is correct.
People used to pay 2 grand apiece for fucking Beanie Babies. How much are they worth now?
Let's look at history.
Could we not apply the same argument here to Amazon when it IPOed?
Amazon went public and was valued at $438 million.
At the time, Amazon had $16 million in revenue, and was running at a net LOSS of $3 million.
Amazon.com IPO skyrockets - CNET News
It traded at $18/share.
Moving forward to today:
Amazon is valued at $96.34 Billion
Its share price is $213.85
-------
If we went back in time, some people here would be arguing how Amazon was WAYY overvalued, and not making any profits. That obviously wouldn't have turned out to be the case.
We can't be certain about what the future holds for Facebook, but Amazon's example gives merit to Facebook's current valuation.
Only if it is a free market without price controls. Otherwise the price will not match the value.