Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's incorrect relative to a particular conventional usage of the terms (though not the only conventional usage, because "price IS value" is found often enough in the literature, too). But after the explanations I've given, why would you believe that I'm reporting that conventional usage of the terms rather than giving an alternate usage based on analysis?
It's like saying, "Mind is defined as the non-physical phenomenon of consciousness; it's different than the brain". Then someone else comes along and says, "No, mind is exactly the brain in particular states . . ." etc. You wouldn't claim that that person is wrong because they don't agree with a particular view that is reflected in the former definition. They have a different view, which is what they're giving in their account. The definition someone assigns to a term can only be incorrect relative to some other definition assigned to the term. But telling them that this is the case--that their definition is different than some other definition might be a bit patronizing if they're familiar with the other definition, but rather, they have the definition they do because they do not agree with the analysis or the concepts wrapped up in the other definition. The way to counter that, if you want them to change their view, wouldn't be to note that their definition is different (as if they do not already know this), it would be to provide some argument by way of analysis for why their definition couldn't work, or perhaps doesn't work better than the alternative, etc.--and then they either meet those objections in some way or not.
you can't change definitions to suit your argument. Like I said, 5 years ago, a 1 hundred billion dollar bill would buy you the entire economy of Zimbabwe. Now, it won't even buy you a roll of toilet paper. Try telling them price is value.
Price is value if and only if the increase in price outpaces the rate of inflation. That's a fact, and no philosophical BS is going to change that. So, sometimes an increase in price can be an increase in value, which would make the statement "price is value" correct sometimes, but now always. If you are going to cite some literature that is going to argue otherwise, it doesn't make you or them right because you are essentially trying to argue that 2+2=5.
Nevertheless, the fact remains, if the US government manages to get housing prices to increase again in the near future, it will be at the expense of jacking up the rate of inflation way beyond where it is now. Even if housing prices increase, they'll still be losing value, because they won't outpace the rate of inflation. Hence, people that bought in 2007 at peak prices will never see their value come back to where it was. That was a bubble and it was a fantasy price based on massive fraud. Robert Schiller proved that housing never increases in value over the long run by going back to prices all the way back to 1890. They merely return the rate of inflation over the long run and whenever they have returned more than the rate of inflation over the short run, the gains have ALWAYS been erased shortly after.
you can't change definitions to suit your argument.
Meanings are not objective in my view (and definitions are correlated to meanings). Especially if one engages in any kind of theoretical analysis, one can easily believe that definitions should be other than some convention has them. Of course, it's also not as if there is just one conventional definition for most terms, and the meaning correlated to those definitions might be as varied as the number of people thinking about them.
Quote:
Like I said, 5 years ago, a 1 hundred billion dollar bill would buy you the entire economy of Zimbabwe. Now, it won't even buy you a roll of toilet paper. Try telling them price is value.
And like I said, "one hundred billion dollars" has no meaning as a price outside of value. If that would have bought the entire ecomony of Zimbabwe five years ago but not now, it's because things were valued differently five years ago.
Quote:
Price is value if and only if the increase in price outpaces the rate of inflation.
I'm familiar with that being your view. It's not mine. Do you understand that?
Quote:
That's a fact,
Nope. No meanings (and then as reflected in definitions) are facts, period. Meaning is subjective.
Quote:
So, sometimes an increase in price can be an increase in value, which would make the statement "price is value" correct sometimes, but now always.
That's under your view, which I agree is one conventional view (but not the only one). However, I think that view has theoretical problems.
Quote:
If you are going to cite some literature that is going to argue otherwise, it doesn't make you or them right
I do not agree that there is "right" on such things.
Quote:
Nevertheless, the fact remains, if the US government manages to get housing prices to increase again in the near future . . .
Then they will get housing values to increase in the future.
Quote:
Even if housing prices increase, they'll still be losing value, because they won't outpace the rate of inflation.
Once again, I believe that you're confusing the fact that numbers are larger, with no semantic context for those numbers, with the idea of a price increasing. They're not the same thing in my view.
Quote:
Hence, people that bought in 2007 at peak prices will never see their value come back to where it was.
I disagree that anyone can predict the future in that way.
Quote:
Robert Schiller proved that housing never increases in value over the long run by going back to prices all the way back to 1890.
LOL--in my view, that's a ridiculous use of the word "proof".
Meanings are not objective in my view (and definitions are correlated to meanings). Especially if one engages in any kind of theoretical analysis, one can easily believe that definitions should be other than some convention has them. Of course, it's also not as if there is just one conventional definition for most terms, and the meaning correlated to those definitions might be as varied as the number of people thinking about them.
One has to wonder about the "worth" or "Value" of participating in a group discussion when one is unwilling to use words & phrases in the same sense & with the same meanings at are conventionally accepted for those words & phrases. IT strikes me that such a person would be well nigh incomprehensible to many if not most of the participants in that discussion, renderring one's opinions incomprehensible or misunderstood.
If one contributes to a discussion and no one is there to understand it, has one conbtributed?
One has to wonder about the "worth" or "Value" of participating in a group discussion when one is unwilling to use words & phrases in the same sense & with the same meanings at are conventionally accepted for those words & phrases. IT strikes me that such a person would be well nigh incomprehensible to many if not most of the participants in that discussion, renderring one's opinions incomprehensible or misunderstood.
If one contributes to a discussion and no one is there to understand it, has one conbtributed?
If you're really interested in various theories of meaning, communication, etc., that would be a good topic for an appropriate forum. Just let me know.
I couldn't disagree more strongly with that, and I've already stated as much.
which is precisely why you are wrong. As I said, you are essentially trying to argue 2+2=5. Your argument holds no water. For example, you claimed my Zimbabwe example doesn't work.
Quote:
And like I said, "one hundred billion dollars" has no meaning as a price outside of value. If that would have bought the entire ecomony of Zimbabwe five years ago but not now, it's because things were valued differently five years ago.
You want it one way with the Zimbabwe dollar and another way with the US dollar when both have been devalued significantly in the recent years. They are the same. One is just way ahead of the other.
Furthermore, as I said before, none of your philosopical arguments will change the fact that you will be able to trade your house for less if the rate of inflation outpaces housing prices. You can claim they have gained value with increasing prices all you want, but as a great economist said last year, "It doesn't mean much if your town home is worth a million dollars if it costs you $1000 to fill up your fridge".
Your argument holds no water because you are arguing against simple logic. If your house increases in price by $1 dollar in the next 10 years while inflation is at 5% percent a year, it lost over half of its value. But you would claim in gained in value.
You claim no measurement is absolute when that is flat out false. The absolute value is at the end of the day, what can you get for your house and what does that buy you. Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the dollar is a fixed unit of measurement and you completely ignore the fact that it can lose value itself, which would naturally decrease the value of your house, possibly even if the dollar amount for your house increases.
And I think exactly the same thing. You're wrong in your belief that such things are facts.
Quote:
As I said, you are essentially trying to argue 2+2=5.
I believe that you're wrong that there is objective meaning to mathematical terms, as well. I'm what's known in philosophy of mathematics as an anti-realist on mathematics.
Quote:
Your argument holds no water.
An argument to that effect would have to establish that. Not merely an assertion.
Quote:
For example, you claimed my Zimbabwe example doesn't work.
Right, and I explained why.
Quote:
You want it one way with the Zimbabwe dollar and another way with the US dollar when both have been devalued significantly in the recent years.
That's a claim that I said something internally inconsistent. Could you quote what you believe to be inconsistent there?
Quote:
Furthermore, as I said before, none of your philosopical arguments will change the fact that you will be able to trade your house for less if the rate of inflation outpaces housing prices.
Which I do not disagree with. The problem is that it's not inconsistent with my view.
Quote:
You can claim they have gained value with increasing prices all you want,
If you believe that I'm saying, "If the number is bigger, then the price is increasing", then you're hardly reading me close enough to allow the kinds of criticisms that you're attempting here.
Quote:
Your argument holds no water because you are arguing against simple logic.
I know a bit about logic, by the way. Could you maybe talk about the simple logic you're referring to in logical terms? It need not be formalized, but you could at least talk about the structure as a piece of informal logic.
Quote:
If your house increases in price by $1 dollar in the next 10 years while inflation is at 5% percent a year, it lost over half of its value.
Here's a quick test to see how closely you've been reading me. I've given you the info you need to answer this example for me--that is, to give the answers that I'd give.
(1) If the number assigned to the price of your house 10 years ago was $1000, and now it's $1001, is it necessarily the case that the price has increased? (In other words, under my view, is price identical to a number looked at non-contextually?)
(2) Can it be the case under my view that the value of x (relative to whatever we're using as a frame of reference) has decreased, yet the price of x (relative to that same exact frame of reference) has increased?
Quote:
You claim no measurement is absolute when that is flat out false.
I think it's "flat out false" that it's flat out false.
Quote:
The absolute value is at the end of the day, what can you get for your house and what does that buy you.
That's value relative to many different things--it depends on what we want to choose as our frame of reference.
Quote:
Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the dollar is a fixed unit of measurement
No, not at all. I don't know what I said that could possibly give you that idea.
this is going no where. Bill hit it on the head. You refuse to even acknowledge concepts definitions of terms that have been set in stone for over a hundred years. You are trying to be way too philosophical with this when the cold hard fact is, if a house won't buy you what it will tomorrow, then it lost value. You can't argue with that, and if you insist on it, I'll get back to you in a year, when your house is worth less.
Quote:
That's value relative to many different things--it depends on what we want to choose as our frame of reference.
Maybe you should read back to where I said:
"When every other asset class out performs housing, a house is losing value. Even if every asset class increases in price while it happens."
Choose any asset you want, it will outperform housing in the next year.
Right, and I agree it's not likely to--and would have said that by about the second exchange between us (having had exchanges like this online hundreds of times over the past 15 years). You're interested in telling me that I'm wrong. I'm interested in sharing my views. I'd be interested in criticisms of my view from within the context of my views, but I don't think you're interested in my views as such enough to bother with that. I can understand your perspective . . . it's just that you shouldn't expect me to share that perspective.
Quote:
Bill hit it on the head. You refuse to even acknowledge concepts definitions of terms that have been set in stone for over a hundred years.
Well, and I certainly do not agree that any definitions (much less concepts) are set in stone. I also can't think of any definitions that I'd say have been the same for hundreds of years (and that have only had one definition for hundreds of years rather than multiple senses), but maybe if we make that narrow enough so that it's about a particular person's views, like "Kant's categorical imperative", we could use that as a candidate (although the interpretations of the same don't remain constant for hundreds of years).
Quote:
You are trying to be way too philosophical with this
Well, "philosopher" is one of the things I am. And I don't believe that philosophical views are something separate from "everyday life".
Quote:
when the cold hard fact is, if a house won't buy you what it will tomorrow, then it lost value.
I would guess that you intended something like "If a house won't buy you tomorrow what it will today . . . "? I'd certainly agree with that, and the one thing I find disheartening is that you didn't read my comments closely enough to know that I'd agree with that. But that stems from not being interested in my views as such rather than being interested in telling me that I'm wrong once I say something that's not the same as what you'd say. <shrug>
One of the main reasons I participate in forums like this because I'm interested in sharing views. If I didn't want to know what other people thought about things--especially where that's different than my own views (it wouldn't be very interesting to me if we all thought the same things), I'd hardly waste my time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
