Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:07:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
622 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > No. There may be an agreement, but Frank said clearly in
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18918 that "The relationships
> > that make a family a family are property".
And I wasn't disagreeing with that. (I might actually, in the end, but I
haven't found fault with his assertion yet.) I was merely speaking to the
contract's nature, as Frank pointed out.
> contract. Chris also added a crucial bit that the relationship is
> jointly held property, and I would argue that as a default, assuming no
> contract to the contrary, that either party may disolve a relationship
> without penalty, thus destroying that joint property.
Except in another note, I asked about the ability of a parent to do so with a
kid...I haven't gotten to your response if there was one.
> > In these examples, one's *interest* in the value of the asset changes or you
> > may receive additional property, but I don't think you've demonstrated that
> > the value of the property changes. (ie $1,000 bond siezed by your
> > government, doesn't become $1,500 when they compensate you for its seizure.
> > The $1,000 bond is still $1,000, and the government pays a penalty of $500 -
> > that penalty doesn't revalue the property.)
>
> I agree with you here.
No, that's silly. Value is what someone is willing to give for something, not
what's printed on the face of it or what an expert tells you it is worth. If
someone gives you 1500 for a 1000 bond, then *obviously* it is worth 1500.
There are investors who make small fortunes by specifically buying real estate
in zones that are projected to be wiped by new freeways and stuff so that they
can bilk the government when they eminent domain the land. They know that the
value will rise unreasonably and they want to be on the receiving end.
Is $10 "worth" of stock still worth $10 when someone is willing to pay you only
$5 or as much as $20?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) Yes, though a contract may be in place. I would tend to think that there is an implicit contract entered when the child is conceived. (...) Ok, point conceded. I've lost my train of thought on this bit though. Unfortunately this debate which I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) It might be useful to distinguish individually-ascribed worth from market-ascribed worth. That $1000 bond may be "worth" $1500 to Buyer A, but if you go on the market and say "I'm selling this $1000 bond for $1500," you'll find out what the (...) (21 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) Chris wasn't saying the relationship is not propery. He was saying the contract is not a property, it is documentation of the agreement of what property is involved in the relationship and how to handle disolving the contract. Chris also added (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
