your claim that not everyone needs cars is also not always true. So it's also obviously not true.
So why claim I'm wrong when you are too?
OFFICIAL Facebook IPO Thread
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
your claim that not everyone needs cars is also not always true. So it's also obviously not true.
So why claim I'm wrong when you are too?
http://bit.ly/ogHSVr - bit.ly because wf breaks on this link. not a dickroll.http://www.jonacuff.com/stuffchrist...is-some-magical-get-out-of-being-a-jerk-card/
I never asserted that. I am maintaining that all value is subjective, and a car consumer or a car collector doesn't need to know how a car is made, or the manufacturing details of a car to purchase it for their own purpose.
Keep it coming bro, you're just helping me sharpen these arguments for future debates with Marxists.
I agree with dchuck, this shits gonna fall - but again I invested for the sole purpose of hype for a quick flip. You can always invest in a company based based merely on that, and not just what the companies worth...
I never claimed that. I claimed that value is subjective.
I am not making positive value statements I can't substantiate. You are.
Nice attempt at a tu quoque though.
I have only made one claim.
Value is subjective. I have pointed out the error in the thinking of a few people here who want to insist that value is objective.
This argument is actually incredibly dumb, but I am trying not to be dismissive or insulting to the other parties in the debate. This is as dumb, as you think people believing in God is. That's how obviously wrong you are when you go against an idea, that if you stopped to reason it out for 30 minutes, would see very clearly I am sure.
But to do that, you have to be able to set aside your bias from facts, for a brief period of time. If you're trying to prove you're right, you won't get there. Your mind will defend you from acknowledging an error.
But if you can simply block out your emotions long enough to build a new train of reasoning, starting with the notion that each human and their own assessment of their condition and world is different from one another, I think you can get there.
According to the objectivists, there is only one rational investing behavior and one set of methodology for determining value bro.
So basically, you're doing it wrong.
Although I think you might be doing it very right.
It could because they just announced the acquisition of Karma. Then once the market has time to price that into the value and GS begins to remove their $38 floor on the price you'll begin to see a more accurate pricing. But even that doesn't mean the price will match the value any time soon. A shitload of companies are overpriced right now but eventually they'll be corrected when the bubble pops.
Yes I have. Have you?
I never said that. I said I understand it, not that I'm "into Austrian economics", or jerk off to it, or even that I am an expert on it. I understand it well enough to be able to appreciate Ron Paul's position on economics. That's it, and that's all. I don't spend my spare time memorizing economic theories though, I try to temper most of what I do in life with the realities of the world I live in. It's a personal choice.
He is an exception, but the fact that most investors lose money owes more to paying $38/share prematurely for shit like Facebook then it does with following Mr. Graham's investing principles. Most investors don't have the patience to buy based on value, they buy based on the prevailing winds in the hopes of making a quick buck and that's why they lose money.
For every Amazon whose underlying value actually caught up to the early pricing, there are thousands of companies that never did and investors lose. Will the value of Facebook eventually justify the current price? Maybe. Is it a sound investment based on any economic principals? No, not at this time it isn't.
Certainly something to take note of and raises some red flags.
Original investors Peter Thiel and other VC's have increased their selling positions and are now dumping 50% of their Facebook shares.
Goldman, Other Investors Pile Out of Facebook - Overheard - WSJ
Original investors Peter Thiel and other VC's have increased their selling positions and are now dumping 50% of their Facebook shares.
Goldman, Other Investors Pile Out of Facebook - Overheard - WSJ
- Accel Partners plans to sell up to 28% of its shares.
- Peter Thiel plans to sell as much as 50% of his stake.
- Goldman Sachs will also sell as much as 50%, up from 23% previously.
- DST Global and Mail.ru will dump up to 40% of their shares, up from 23% previously.
- Tiger Global will sell up to 50% of its stake. Previously it planned to sell 7%.
Not at all. Those investors you listed are in the business of valuing small high-growth private companies, not large public companies. Their funds have a lifecycle and the LPs expect to get paid. They were designed with 5-8 year timelines from the beginning.
You would have a hard time finding a company that goes public where Accel continues to hold a large part of their position for years to come. It simply is not their business.
Of course, but I'm particularly referring to them increasing their % amount to sell from previously determined levels. They obviously changed their selling strategy after the IPO price was increased.
I think the one thing I have learned in this thread is how little people understand complicated economic processes.
Sure, that is how price action works. More people try to sell more when the price is higher.
I think it is great they are selling their shares, it creates more liquidity and will help the market for this stock mature very quickly.
It's sad that people haven't learned to stay far away from anything that scumbag Rothschild firm Goldman-Sachs has their fingers in. They're universally known in investment banking as never being wrong. Why do you think that is? Because they use their huge resources to manipulate anything from the price of oil (they have huge physical reserves) to the manipulating the price of shares. They already made a cool billion in cash from this IPO alone. The people banking on Facebook bought the shares at discount a long time before Joe Schmoe told his broker to buy him 50 shares. Pump and dump on another level.
I am convinced Facebook is going to tank soon.
When? Where?
So basically, you cannot distinguish Austrian economics from Classical economics or the Chicago school. Is this correct?
Economics is value free.
I wanted to address this separately because I am tired of people bringing it up as some sort of argument or value statement.
We all have to deal with reality. There are FACTS of reality. If you're going to make some sort of statement of pragmatism, or appeal to common sense, just reference verifiable facts. There is no need to say reality as though economists or philosophers or Lew Rockwell or me or Jake don't exist or act or account for reality.
What you believe to be true may be YOUR psychological perception, but it is not objective reality for everyone else. This is what dchuk was struggling with. He assumed the facts he had, meant he was right. Everyone thinks this, but it's obviously not true because facts inform values, they aren't values unto themselves.
Gravity doesn't tell us to put on a parachute, or to jump off a ledge. It doesn't tell us to make an airplane or stay on the ground. It is a fact we use to draw a conclusion from in concert with our values.
If you have better FACTS, share them. Don't claim your outlook is more "real" or you are somehow using a realism which others are not unless you can substantiate your realism with the facts.
Everyone accounts for reality. We're all in reality. We're all breathing in reality, shitting in reality and eating food in reality. Even dreams of unicorns and leprechuans occur in the heads of people who are indeed, existing in reality.
We all have to deal with reality. There are FACTS of reality. If you're going to make some sort of statement of pragmatism, or appeal to common sense, just reference verifiable facts. There is no need to say reality as though economists or philosophers or Lew Rockwell or me or Jake don't exist or act or account for reality.
What you believe to be true may be YOUR psychological perception, but it is not objective reality for everyone else. This is what dchuk was struggling with. He assumed the facts he had, meant he was right. Everyone thinks this, but it's obviously not true because facts inform values, they aren't values unto themselves.
Gravity doesn't tell us to put on a parachute, or to jump off a ledge. It doesn't tell us to make an airplane or stay on the ground. It is a fact we use to draw a conclusion from in concert with our values.
If you have better FACTS, share them. Don't claim your outlook is more "real" or you are somehow using a realism which others are not unless you can substantiate your realism with the facts.
what is emotional in regards to looking at a company's balance sheet and then looking at what people are paying to own a portion of it based on those numbers and seeing a massive discrepancy when compared to other companies both past and future?
What could possibly be more factual than looking at their actual revenue numbers?
There have been foundational shifts in economics throughout history, usually caused by massive changes in industry and technology. The industrial revolution caused a whole new school of though to emerge. I'm arguing that the tech revolution should also be causing new thought processes to emerge as a company without a monetization strategy is not any different than throwing money into a furnace in the hopes that one day you can profit.
Therefore, I am arguing the traditional way to valuate a company is dated and inaccurate given the nature of internet based companies.
(O_o)
H̨̼̩͐̑͆̀̚&
As highlighted above, you're wrong here.
The early stage VC's will be looking to get rid of much as they can to realise their profits to investors. The skills required to evaluate and manage an investment in a huge public company, are vastly different to a rapidly expanding "small" company.
As far as people like Peter Thiel go, he has more money than he could ever need, why hold out in FB for what's potentially more? He can put that money to use doing things he'll get more satisfaction from.
If you want to see big red flags, check out Groupon, where the CEO himself sold a massive amount of his holdings during a private funding round, now that shit is bad.
