"After the abolishment of the Gold Standard it is very hard to define wealth any longer."
to an extent.
completely irrelevant to the issue, but true.
wealth is everything you own. your house, your car, your gold bullion, your stamp collection, your clothes, etc. etc.
MOST items are much less easy to immediately value (price define), and much less easy to liquidate.
again, irrelevant, but it actually goes against the alleged reason that volente thinks its not zero sum (but is not even an argument against zero sum, so what's the point)
the purpose, and nifty benefit of a two way auction market (stocks, futures, options, bonds, etc. are two way auction market) is that price is ALWAYS known (except when the market is closed). it's called "price discovery". if your a seller, the value of what u own in that market, your wealth in that market is IMMEDIATELY defined by the latest bid/ask.
of course, it VARIES, just like real estate, the value of the dollar, gold, food, gasoline, etc.
however, unlike most markets, there is one agreed upon price at any given moment in time.
it doesn't MATTER that if EVERYBODY who owned asset class X (be it a stock, or a maserati) decided to sell at once, that this would drive the price down (one of volente's red herrings). the same is true of ANY asset class. it's called supply/demand.
most assets are much less easily defined in terms of current price, than stocks. gasoline varies from station to station (not to mention that it's kind of difficult to sell it back), your house is different from every other house, and you don't know what u can get until you try to sell it. there is no AGREED upon price.
in stocks (or futures, etc.) the EXACT price is agreed upon at all times the market is open.
and of course, this fluxes with time, as does any asset class.
there are ONLY two kinds of systems when it comes to this distinction we are discussing - zero sum or non-zero sum
it HAS to be one or the other. no matter how many examples one gives of why it is NOT zero sum (all u need is one), some people can't understand the concept.
to an extent.
completely irrelevant to the issue, but true.
wealth is everything you own. your house, your car, your gold bullion, your stamp collection, your clothes, etc. etc.
MOST items are much less easy to immediately value (price define), and much less easy to liquidate.
again, irrelevant, but it actually goes against the alleged reason that volente thinks its not zero sum (but is not even an argument against zero sum, so what's the point)
the purpose, and nifty benefit of a two way auction market (stocks, futures, options, bonds, etc. are two way auction market) is that price is ALWAYS known (except when the market is closed). it's called "price discovery". if your a seller, the value of what u own in that market, your wealth in that market is IMMEDIATELY defined by the latest bid/ask.
of course, it VARIES, just like real estate, the value of the dollar, gold, food, gasoline, etc.
however, unlike most markets, there is one agreed upon price at any given moment in time.
it doesn't MATTER that if EVERYBODY who owned asset class X (be it a stock, or a maserati) decided to sell at once, that this would drive the price down (one of volente's red herrings). the same is true of ANY asset class. it's called supply/demand.
most assets are much less easily defined in terms of current price, than stocks. gasoline varies from station to station (not to mention that it's kind of difficult to sell it back), your house is different from every other house, and you don't know what u can get until you try to sell it. there is no AGREED upon price.
in stocks (or futures, etc.) the EXACT price is agreed upon at all times the market is open.
and of course, this fluxes with time, as does any asset class.
there are ONLY two kinds of systems when it comes to this distinction we are discussing - zero sum or non-zero sum
it HAS to be one or the other. no matter how many examples one gives of why it is NOT zero sum (all u need is one), some people can't understand the concept.