Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:28 pm**

Does the Mona Lisa have value? What is it based on?

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:31 pm**

Kshartle wrote: Does the Mona Lisa have value? What is it based on?

Yes, it has value, because people are willing to trade resources for it.
However, that is not an intrinsic property of the painting itself, but is based on people's opinion of it.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:38 pm**

Libertarian666 wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Does the Mona Lisa have value? What is it based on?
Yes, it has value, because people are willing to trade resources for it.
However, that is not an intrinsic property of the painting itself, but is based on people's opinion of it.

This is my understanding of the concept as well.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:44 pm**

Libertarian666 wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Does the Mona Lisa have value? What is it based on?
Yes, it has value, because people are willing to trade resources for it.
However, that is not an intrinsic property of the painting itself, but is based on people's opinion of it.

Why are they willing to trade for it? What is that value based on? Is it not based on the properties of the painting itself, which an end to and of themselves? You can't say it has tradeable value because people value it because it can be traded because people value it so on and so forth. The properites it has are where it derives it's value and are an end unto themselves, unlike say, water which has value because we can quench are thirst with it or wash clothes with it; or a stock which pays us dividends so we can buy stuff we want with it.

No one wants water or a stock just for it's own sake. They do want the Mona Lisa or Gold for their own sake. They value it not because they trade it. Otherwise it would really have no value because everyone would just want to trade but why would anyone want to buy it because no one would ever ultimately want to hold it? Well, gold has utility value also but on it's own the price would be much lower. We know this is true because people hold it and consume very little of the current supply at the current price. It's too valuable to be consumed unless absolutely vital at these prices.

We are disagreeing on the fundamental concept of intrinsic value. It is the value that something has based on it's properties that make it desireable to have just for it's own sake and not some external utility.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:46 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Does the Mona Lisa have value? What is it based on?
Yes, it has value, because people are willing to trade resources for it.
However, that is not an intrinsic property of the painting itself, but is based on people's opinion of it.
This is my understanding of the concept as well.

This is not a complete understanding of the concept though. It is very difficult to wrap your arms around and I am probably not doing it justice. My understanding might not be strong enough to properly convey the idea of "goodness or value for it's own sake".

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:54 pm**

Kshartle wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Does the Mona Lisa have value? What is it based on?
Yes, it has value, because people are willing to trade resources for it.
However, that is not an intrinsic property of the painting itself, but is based on people's opinion of it.
Why are they willing to trade for it? What is that value based on? Is it not based on the properties of the painting itself, which an end to and of themselves? You can't say it has tradeable value because people value it because it can be traded because people value it so on and so forth. The properites it has are where it derives it's value and are an end unto themselves, unlike say, water which has value because we can quench are thirst with it or wash clothes with it; or a stock which pays us dividends so we can buy stuff we want with it.

No one wants water or a stock just for it's own sake. They do want the Mona Lisa or Gold for their own sake. They value it not because they trade it. Otherwise it would really have no value because everyone would just want to trade but why would anyone want to buy it because no one would ever ultimately want to hold it? Well, gold has utility value also but on it's own the price would be much lower. When know this is true because people hold it and consume very little of the current supply at the current price. It's too valuable to be consumed unless absolutely vital at these prices.

We are disagreeing on the fundamental concept of intrinsic value. It is the value that something has based on it's properties that make it desireable to have just for it's own sake and not some external utility.

People value the Mona Lisa because they find it beautiful, which is subjective.

We can see this because people from different cultures, and indeed different people in the same culture, have different notions of beauty. Someone from a culture that has different notions of beauty might find the Mona Lisa of no value to them. I personally don't find it so beautiful that I would be willing to pay even 1% of its appraised value for it... unless I thought I could sell it to someone who appraised it higher. But of course that too is not an intrinsic characteristic of the object.

Its mass, however, is independent of cultural considerations, and is therefore an intrinsic property.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:02 pm**

Libertarian666 wrote: People value the Mona Lisa because they find it beautiful, which is subjective.

Subjectivity does not mean it cannot have value. The value of everything, even utility value is subjective. Saying if no one valued it then it wouldn't have value doesn't change the fact that people do in fact value it. They do value it for it's properties and for it's own sake. It is the very definition of intrinsic value. Pretending that it would lose it's value if people didn't value it ignores the reality of it's value.

It's like saying people wouldn't value water for drinking if it was poison. Unless they were part of a suicide cult I suppose.

I think we're talking past each other and not coming to an agreement on the basic concept. It's cool. Agree to disagree.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:15 pm**

Libertarian666 wrote: Its mass, however, is independent of cultural considerations, and is therefore an intrinsic property.

Just one more.

It's mass is a property of it. Intrinsic or not, it is one of the properties that gives it it's value.

If it weighed 1 billion pounds it would have a different value. If the material was such that it could not be perserved at all and rotted away quickly it would not have value. If it was a blank canvas instead of that dude-looking-like lady it would have virtually no vlaue.

The value comes from it's unique combination of properties, all of them intrinsic. That's why people will trade millions of dollars worth of stuff for it, not the other way around.

To me it's way overvalued. Way way overvalued but hey, clearly somebody is willing to part with a lot for it.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:26 pm**

Mona Lisa has the same value as gold. Its only worth what someone else is paying for it.
But i give you a concrete example for a business. What is a business worth in cash, when it has 10 million $ cash in the bank and nothing else, no property no factory etc. and no debt? Would you agree that its value is 10 million$? But what if the stock of the business trades for 7 million $ market cap? Isn`t it obvious that this is a bargain, where you cannot really loose money? (Except for the fact when the company burns through the cash in no time.). And the thing is such stocks exist, but it is work necessary to uncover that kind of bargains.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:28 pm**

TennPaGa wrote:
Pointedstick wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, it has value, because people are willing to trade resources for it.
However, that is not an intrinsic property of the painting itself, but is based on people's opinion of it.
This is my understanding of the concept as well.
Mine too.

This is backwards. It's putting the cart in front of the horse. Something doesn't have value because people are willing to trade resources for it. They are willing to trade resources for it because it has value.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:33 pm**

frommi wrote: Mona Lisa has the same value as gold. Its only worth what someone else is paying for it.
But i give you a concrete example for a business. What is a business worth in cash, when it has 10 million $ cash in the bank and nothing else, no property no factory etc. and no debt? Would you agree that its value is 10 million$? But what if the stock of the business trades for 7 million $ market cap? Isn`t it obvious that this is a bargain, where you cannot really loose money? (Except for the fact when the company burns through the cash in no time.). And the thing is such stocks exist, but it is work necessary to uncover that kind of bargains.

I think everyone agrees it is easier to determine what the dollar value of 10 million dollars in the bank is vs. gold. It's something slightly less than 10 million. It is obvious that gold has dollar value however. It's $1,330 an ounce currently. What will it be tomorrow? I don't know. That doesn't change the absolute fact it has dollar value.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:37 pm**

Kshartle wrote: Something doesn't have value because people are willing to trade resources for it. They are willing to trade resources for it because it has value.

Yes. but there are intrinsic values like an object's mass, and subjective values like an object's beauty. The former exists even if the human race has gone extinct; the latter does not. If a property of an object ceases to exist without other humans around to care about that property, I would say it's not very intrinsic. Once the cockroaches are all that's left, the Mona Lisa is just a piece of canvas with some pigments on it.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:44 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Something doesn't have value because people are willing to trade resources for it. They are willing to trade resources for it because it has value.
Yes. but there are intrinsic values like an object's mass, and subjective values like an object's beauty. The former exists even if the human race has gone extinct; the latter does not. If a property of an object ceases to exist without other humans around to care about that property, I would say it's not very intrinsic. Once the cockroaches are all that's left, the Mona Lisa is just a piece of canvas with some pigments on it.

If there are no humans to value anything then who's around to say anything has value?

The beauty is not a property, it's an opinion of the properties.

All value is subjective.

It is either intrinsic or extrinsic.

Intrinsic value is value for it's own sake, not some external use, but most certainly based on it's properties.

Extrinsic is what someone, either you or someone else can do with it.

You guys are hung up on subjectivity which is irrelavent and dollar value which is funny, since the latter has no properties that would give it value on it's own, except maybe for paper airplanes or to start fires.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:48 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Something doesn't have value because people are willing to trade resources for it. They are willing to trade resources for it because it has value.
Yes. but there are intrinsic values like an object's mass, and subjective values like an object's beauty. The former exists even if the human race has gone extinct; the latter does not. If a property of an object ceases to exist without other humans around to care about that property, I would say it's not very intrinsic. Once the cockroaches are all that's left, the Mona Lisa is just a piece of canvas with some pigments on it.

Yes if there were no humans then the Mona Lisa would have no value. But they are around and it does have value to humans, based exclusively on it's intrinsic properties. If water was poison it would not make a good beverage and if my Aunt had b@lls she'd be my uncle.

I meant that last one to be funny not snarky.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:59 pm**

Kshartle wrote: This is backwards. It's putting the cart in front of the horse. Something doesn't have value because people are willing to trade resources for it. They are willing to trade resources for it because it has value.

Hmm, sounds like you guys better spend a few pages arguing about what "value" means before you resolve "intrinsic."
I'm going to get some more popcorn.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:01 pm**

Kshartle wrote: If there are no humans to value anything then who's around to say anything has value?

Precisely. Without humans, "value" is a nonsensical concept. But mass isn't. That's why I agree with Libertarian666 that "intrinsic value" really can't exist. It's a contradiction in terms. You said it yourself: "All value is subjective." IMHO, a property cannot be intrinsic if it subjective.

However, just because value isn't intrinsic, doesn't mean it's not important. I mean, humans DO exist and so the Mona Lisa and gold coins have value. But that value is dependent on the opinions of people as a collective; it's inherently malleable and cannot be rationally discovered by a single person the way an object's mass can. For example if I think my gold coins are worth $50,000 apiece but the market (a collective) believes them to be worth $1,400, I may be entitled to my opinion but I will not be able to sell them.

I cannot arrive at a correct valuation alone; My valuation must be tested against and integrated within a collective sentiment; the market determines value. If the market determines the value, the value cannot be some inherent discoverable property. Value is not discovered but rather created and agreed upon in a highly temporal manner; it may change tomorrow if people agree on a different value at that time or the people doing the valuing change.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:05 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
Kshartle wrote: If there are no humans to value anything then who's around to say anything has value?
Precisely. Without humans, "value" is a nonsensical concept. But mass isn't. That's why I agree with Libertarian666 that "intrinsic value" really can't exist. It's a contradiction in terms. You said it yourself: "All value is subjective." IMHO, a property cannot be intrinsic if it subjective.

However, just because value isn't intrinsic, doesn't mean it's not important. I mean, humans DO exist and so the Mona Lisa and gold coins have value. But that value is dependent on the opinions of people as a collective; it's inherently malleable and cannot be rationally discovered by a single person the way an object's mass can. For example if I think my gold coins are worth $50,000 apiece but the market (a collective) believes them to be worth $1,400, I may be entitled to my opinion but I will not be able to sell them.

I cannot arrive at a correct valuation alone; My valuation must be tested against and integrated within a collective sentiment; the market determines value. If the market determines the value, the value cannot be some inherent discoverable property. Value is not discovered but rather created and agreed upon in a highly temporal manner; it may change tomorrow if people agree on a different value at that time or the people doing the valuing change.

Yes, exactly.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:17 pm**

Apparently Gold has no value, but Latinum does.

Wikipedia.org wrote:The currency of the Ferengi is latinum, a liquid substance of extremely high value. It is impregnated into gold slips, strips, bars, or bricks in standardized amounts for easier handling; in this form, it is referred to as "gold-pressed latinum." The gold serves only as a carrier for the latinum and is worthless to the Ferengi...Latinum derives its value from being non-replicable by any known existing or predicted replication technology.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi

I find it funny that Latinum is, literally, a "liquid" asset.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:28 pm**

I think we're at a standstill.

The argument that since nothing has value if humans don't value it or aren't around to value, therefore nothing has value based on it's properties, is completely bizarre to me.

Humans exist so let's not agrue about whether or something has value because it wouldn't if there weren't humans. I mean seriously guys. If humans stopped existing nothing we say here is going to have any relevance.

Gold has value. That's obvious.

Is it's value based on intrinsic properties or extrinsic properties? Why is the Mona Lisa worth more than another painting? It's because of it's properties, it's intrinsic ones. It's not based on the fact that peopel value it. That's a nonsensensical neverending circle. I could ask you all day why it has value and you reply "because people will trade for it", Why will they trade for it? "Because it has value" What is it's value? "What people will trade for is" on and on and on for infinity until you recognize that people, some people, not all people, value it for it's properties and not for anything external. They are content to simply possess it. It's a very weird concept because almost everything we value we do so for utility. We have to because we are not wealthy enough. That's why a poor person would likely value the Mona Lisa much much less than a wealthy person.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:32 pm**

Gumby wrote: Apparently Gold has no value, but Latinum does.

Wikipedia.org wrote:The currency of the Ferengi is latinum, a liquid substance of extremely high value. It is impregnated into gold slips, strips, bars, or bricks in standardized amounts for easier handling; in this form, it is referred to as "gold-pressed latinum." The gold serves only as a carrier for the latinum and is worthless to the Ferengi...Latinum derives its value from being non-replicable by any known existing or predicted replication technology.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi
I find it funny that Latinum is, literally, a "liquid" asset.

This was my favorite alien race. The one from deep space nine, Quark....best character. A little low on principles though but in general they were traders and not warriors.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:36 pm**

Kshartle wrote: I think we're at a standstill.

The argument that since nothing has value if humans don't value it or aren't around to value, therefore nothing has value based on it's properties, is completely bizarre to me.

Humans exist so let's not agrue about whether or something has value because it wouldn't if there weren't humans. I mean seriously guys. If humans stopped existing nothing we say here is going to have any relevance.

Gold has value. That's obvious.

Is it's value based on intrinsic properties or extrinsic properties? Why is the Mona Lisa worth more than another painting? It's because of it's properties, it's intrinsic ones. It's not based on the fact that peopel value it. That's a nonsensensical neverending circle. I could ask you all day why it has value and you reply "because people will trade for it", Why will they trade for it? "Because it has value" What is it's value? "What people will trade for is" on and on and on for infinity until you recognize that people, some people, not all people, value it for it's properties and not for anything external. They are content to simply possess it. It's a very weird concept because almost everything we value we do so for utility. We have to because we are not wealthy enough. That's why a poor person would likely value the Mona Lisa much much less than a wealthy person.

No, we are not saying that the Mona Lisa has value because people will trade for it. It has value because people think it is beautiful.

Now, if people stopped thinking it was beautiful, then it would have very little or no value, which shows that its value is subjective.

However, it would still have the same mass even if no one ever saw it or thought about it, which shows that its mass is intrinsic ("objective").

I don't know what is difficult about this.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:39 pm**

In other words, Kshartle, what is subjective cannot be inherent, even if some of inputs that determine its subjectivity are inherent.

If you liked eating a hamburger because it had bison meat, and bison meat is your favorite food in the entire world, that wouldn't make the hamburger inherently good.

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:46 pm**

Libertarian666 wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Does the Mona Lisa have value? What is it based on?
Yes, it has value, because people are willing to trade resources for it.
However, that is not an intrinsic property of the painting itself, but is based on people's opinion of it.

This is your comment that it has value because people are willing to trade resources for it.

You are correct that that's not an intrinsic property, but based on people's opinion. Opinion of what? It's properties of course!

All value is subjective. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Either the value is intrinsic or extrinsic.

So either the Mona Lisa has no value, intrinsic value or extrinsic value. Or a 4th possability that I'm missing. Which one is it?

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:51 pm**

Wikipedia = Instrumental value (or extrinsic value, contributory value) is the value of objects, both physical objects and abstract objects, not as ends-in-themselves, but as means of achieving something else. It is often contrasted with items of intrinsic value.

What does the Mona Lisa acheive? What does hiding a gold coin in your safe acheive? Please don't say retain value unless you're willing to admit they have value that is not extrinsic (a means of achieving something else).

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:52 pm**

Kshartle wrote: So either the Mona Lisa has no value, intrinsic value or extrinsic value. Or a 4th possability that I'm missing. Which one is it?

The fourth possibility: that you are setting up a binary choice and then blinding yourself to alternative options. You say, "value is intrinsic or extrinsic!" I say:

1) regardless of whether the value of a thing is intrinsic or extrinsic, it is subjective (you agreed with this)
2) what is subjective cannot be inherent (you have not yet stated your position on this)
3) therefore, value cannot be inherent, since it has been agreed to that it is subjective and something cannot be both subjective and inherent.

If you believe point 3 to be false, then it must be because you disagree that subjectivity and inherency are mutually exclusive. Do you?

Gyroscopic Investing

PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity

Re: PP pops up in a boglethread about risk parity