On Mar 12, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
Shane:
What difference is there between the "actual [monetary] value of real
assets" and the reproduction cost of those assets?
me:
the actual value would reflect the possible _benefits_ to their
owners
from the use of the assets.
Shane, now.
But isn't "market valuation" the only conceivable measure of the
"actual
value" of a capital asset, whose only benefit to its owner is the
"possible"
income stream accruing from it?
We could hire an expert to evaluate future benefits. We may value the
opinion of that expert more than we value the fad- and bubble-prone
stock market.
But isn't the "fad- and bubble-prone stock market" the empirical
*consensus* of the various "fad- and bubble-prone" "experts in
guessing returns years into the future" who make up the stock market?
While reproduction-cost is a definite, meaningful economic reality?
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
