Timeline for Real value of small numbers of shares of company stock
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aug 7 at 3:39 | answer | added | AshaKantaSharma | timeline score: -3 | |
Jul 31, 2013 at 20:33 | comment | added | John | What I meant by there not being an objective value is that prices are not determined with reference to some objective value. Saying life has value is a different sort of value than what economists mean usually. If you wanted to sell me water, then the subjective value is very important. If I am in the city, I may not pay more than 1 dollar for a bottle. If I am in the desert and low on supplies but have lots of money, I might pay 500 dollars. What matters is the expected amount of subjective value an additional unit will give me (aka marginal utility). | |
Jul 31, 2013 at 19:28 | comment | added | wfaulk | That's honestly a better answer than most I've heard. It at least bears its own weight. I would argue against the notion that nothing has objective value. At some point, certain objects help prevent you from dying. Unless life has no value. Which I suppose is almost a reasonable tenet for pure economic study, except for the fact that life is a requirement for subjective value assessment. | |
Jul 31, 2013 at 16:12 | comment | added | John | According to economics, there is no such thing as "real inherent value", aka objective value. There is, however, subjective value, which is why we care about the value of a company being what someone else will pay for it. In your example, people will want to buy XCo because they think its stock price will go up. | |
Jul 31, 2013 at 15:39 | review | First posts | |||
Jul 31, 2013 at 16:27 | |||||
Jul 31, 2013 at 15:21 | comment | added | wfaulk | I will readily admit that this is an Economics 101 type question, but I have never heard a reasonable explanation. Also, apologies if this is off-topic. | |
Jul 31, 2013 at 15:21 | history | asked | wfaulk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |