# Stamp Debate



## BenMiller (May 10, 2012)

A friend of mine posed an interesting question to me the other day, and I'm curious to see what people on this forum think. It actually came up in a Talmudic discussion we were having (yeah, I study the Talmud; I'm a religious Jew lol), I'd like to see what people say about this.

It's obvious that when you damage someone's property you're obligated to pay them back in full. If I smash your car or break your vase, I need to pay for the monetary loss I caused you.

How about this: You own two very rare stamps, each valued at $50,000. They are the only two of their kind in existence. I take one of them, rip it in half and burn it. I owe you $50,000! Right? Here's the catch. The other stamp, now being _the only one_ in existence, has now doubled in value; and is worth $100,000.

Do I owe you anything? Go!


----------



## Michael M (May 10, 2012)

The doubling of value of the 2nd stamp is actually irrelevent to the original crime of destroying the first.....you still owe me $50k.
Some similar commentary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_burning


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

Interesting read, thanks for the link!

Think of it like this: What if I simultaneously robbed you and threw money at you? Or better, what if instead of paying cash for smashing your car, I paid you the value of the damage in a case of mailboxes worth the same amount? Would that not be considered a valid payment (assuming I could "pay" with objects of value as opposed to just cash)? So what if I "paid you" using a rare stamp? One which happened to be yours already?


----------



## Michael M (May 11, 2012)

I dunno what your smokin, but none of what your saying makes any legal sense
If I was happy with a case of mailboxes, so be it !!, but you don't get the choice.....if I am entitled to compensation, you will give me what I want, either by law, or by lawful agreement !


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

Part of this question I guess is to remove the law for a second, and think with pure logic. I'm not saying either way, I just think its something to think about. And no officer, I have not been smoking (tonight)!


----------



## Michael M (May 11, 2012)

Ok....blow in this tube then....
Geez, WHAT !!


> remove the law for a second



if you remove the law....there is Anarchy....it's my stamp, 'cause I took it off you.....ya wanna fight me for it.....


----------



## JamesW (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> Part of this question I guess is to remove the law for a second, and think with pure logic. I'm not saying either way, I just think its something to think about. And no officer, I have not been smoking (tonight)!


 
If I look at this with 'pure logic' as you say then surely it would be something like:

"You broke my car, I want compensating for the damage.  The car costs a total of £10,000 and as I am the victim I will decide on how the £10,000 gets paid to me - in this case I want it paid in cheese."

Surely it's down to the victim to decide how he/she gets compensated (assuming no laws here)...


----------



## justme (May 11, 2012)

I believe the $50,000 would need to be paid even if the remaining stamp's value went up to $100,000.  There was originally two stamps, by destroying one you have forever taken away the possibility of both stamps being worth even more than $100,00 each.


----------



## justme (May 11, 2012)

Now don't think of it in terms of value - just look at what was done.  A crime was done against another and punishment/reparation must be made even if the crime results in good fortune for the victim.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

Justme: I don't think anyone will say I have to pay for damaging something which could have eventually gone up in value. Also, you're thinking from a legal perspective: don't think of it as a punishment; merely financial payment for the financial loss. Imagine if I had done it by accident. No crime there; but I'd still (maybe) be obligated to pay...


----------



## justme (May 11, 2012)

now you have changed it from ripping it in half and burning it, to it being an accident.  So, that changes everything.  Intent is the key.

If you damaged my stamp on purpose, restitution absolutely should be made- and probably a super restitution, (meaning more than the value of the stamp).

If you damaged my stamp by accident, restitution would be nice, but forgiveness better!


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

I would think I only owe you what you paid for the stamp, not what it's currently worth if you sold it.
And if you don't have a reciept for the purchase, then I owe you the face value of the stamp. 
How much the post office would credit you if you put it on an envelope and mailed it.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

justme said:


> now you have changed it from ripping it in half and burning it, to it being an accident.  So, that changes everything.  Intent is the key.
> 
> If you damaged my stamp on purpose, restitution absolutely should be made- and probably a super restitution, (meaning more than the value of the stamp).
> 
> If you damaged my stamp by accident, restitution would be nice, but forgiveness better!



I don't think intent is the key, when it comes to financial obligations. Whether I smash your car with intent or whether I lose control of my car and smash yours completely by accident, I still pay the same amount...


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> I would think I only owe you what you paid for the stamp, not what it's currently worth if you sold it.
> And if you don't have a reciept for the purchase, then I owe you the face value of the stamp.
> How much the post office would credit you if you put it on an envelope and mailed it.



Why should that be? If you purchase something and the value goes up or down, I need to pay what it was worth _when I broke it_... no? I hate to keep using the car example but if you paid fifty grand for a brand new car back in 1990 and now it's a POS (and then I go and smash it), why would I have to pay the original price? Conversely, if you bought a car in the 70s and it is now a vintage worth far more than you paid for it, I should pay for smashing your antique car.


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> Why should that be? If you purchase something and the value goes up or down, I need to pay what it was worth _when I broke it_... no? I hate to keep using the car example but if you paid fifty grand for a brand new car back in 1990 and now it's a POS (and then I go and smash it), why would I have to pay the original price? Conversely, if you bought a car in the 70s and it is now a vintage worth far more than you paid for it, I should pay for smashing your antique car.


 
Because you've only actually lost what you paid for it.
You never actually HAD the current estimated value, so you didn't lose it.
You lost the Potential for the current estimated value..

If you wanted to recover the potential value, your insurance company would pay that, that's what it's for and why it's expensive.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

And what if I received it as a gift?! Why should the original purchase price have anything to do with the amount I pay when I damage it?


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

I'll bet if you bought a collectors item for $100
And a year later it's value has dropped to only $50
And then I broke it.
You would expect me to pay you $100, because that's the $ amount that you lost.
You're lying if you think it would be fair for me to only have to pay you $50.

So the reverse should also true.


----------



## chuckchuckit (May 11, 2012)

This is all about being responsible for your actions.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
Modern day trick is: If you can get people to talk long enough about “the logic” of why it is OK to be harmful because of “the benefits” of causing harm, you no longer are responsible for doing whatever harm you want.
<o> </o>
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

Although the gift part does pose a problem....


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> I'll bet if you bought a collectors item for $100
> And a year later it's value has dropped to only $50
> And then I broke it.
> You would expect me to pay you $100, because that's the $ amount that you lost.
> ...



I don't think so... you lost half of that $100 before I stepped foot in the picture. And why should it be decided by what _I_ want you to pay?

I think it is a very clear rule: When you damage someone financially, you must reimburse them for the damage which *you caused*. That includes if you burnt their money, or smashed their things which are _worth_ money. No difference whether it was on purpose or not. I'm not talking about whether or not you should go to jail; I'm talking about monies owed.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

chuckchuckit said:


> This is all about being responsible for your actions.
> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
> Modern day trick is: If you can get people to talk long enough about “the logic” of why it is OK to be harmful because of “the benefits” of causing harm, you no longer are responsible for doing whatever harm you want.
> <o> </o>
> You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…



I didn't say it's "ok" to be harmful! Obviously you're responsible for any damages you cause. I'm just curious if the automatic increase in the victim's overall wealth *as a direct result of your action* can constitute a payment.


----------



## chuckchuckit (May 11, 2012)

You would owe him $50K for your harmful actions, period. If he benefits additionally from the harm caused, that is to his benefit, not yours. 
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
“You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…” 
<o></o>
BTW, the person who said that quote once walked 3 miles to return a penny he overcharged someone. His concern was about honesty. Maybe that is why they called him “Honest Abe.”


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> And why should it be decided by what _I_ want you to pay?


 
That's just symantics.
I Want vs. what I think the law should provide.

Forgive me if my choice of words was not up to par with the context of the thread.
Please allow me to rephrase..


If you bought a collectors item for $100
And a year later it's value has dropped to only $50
And then I broke it.
I believe that you (or anyone) would be upset if a Judge/Jury decided that I only had to pay $50.

In that scenario, it's expected that the purchase price is what is to be repaid.
If that's true, then the reverse should also be true.

You can't pick and choose whether to pay the purchase price or current value depending only on which is higher..


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> That's just symantics.
> I Want vs. what I think the law should provide.
> 
> Forgive me if my choice of words was not up to par with the context of the thread.
> ...



I don't think so ... drop the collector's item thing for a second (no pun intended). Say it were a car. It goes down in value after 20 years and is now worth $10,000. I should pay the $30,000 it used to be worth?!


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> I don't think so ... drop the collector's item thing for a second (no pun intended). Say it were a car. It goes down in value after 20 years and is now worth $10,000. I should pay the $30,000 it used to be worth?!


 
Absolutely, because that's the amount that I paid for it, and that is what I lost because of your actions.


----------



## xenou (May 11, 2012)

My take is that you must consider the value of the object at the time that it was destroyed, which at that time was $50,000.  To destroy an object someone owns based on what they will have when they no longer own it might be a special case of some sort, in which case the laws of reparation must be fitted to meet the exceptional circumstance of the situation.  I cannot see how you are entitled to go about destroying one of two stamps in another's possession on the reasoning that it does them no harm.  

Reparation is a way of making up for a loss, but it's not the same as if the loss never occurred.  It may be that you can repay the worth of the stamp, but you can never really restore the stamp.  The law uses reparation as a substitute for what is really wanted and cannot be: the return of the stamp to its owner.  Hence you are _really_ responsible for the act, which is restored by means of a financial substitute (money).  Your crime is not really about the financial state of the owner of the stamp.  Indeed, we know nothing about what the future value of one or two of this stamps will be 10 years from now - which is why the best that can be done is to look at the situation when the crime occurred.  

Some judges may imposes even a stiffer fine - you destroyed the future potential of two rare objects on the reasoning that you could predict the future value of one rare object, and arrogantly decided you could make this decision for the owner?  Then call it just?  Do we need a Talmudic argument?  How about:
_We would never admit it was correct to steal a little girl's doll and give her another saying "one is good as the other".  Then also we cannot condone the destruction of a man's treasured possession saying, "you don't need it"._


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

If the stamp is appraised to be worth $50,000.
You don't actually possess that $50,000
You only possess the potential of $50,000

It's only worth 50K if you sell it right now.
But it wasn't sold, it was destroyed.
There was potential for it to be worth 50k
But because of fluctutions in the Stamp Collectors market,
there was also potential for it to be worth only 20K, or perhaps 100K
There's no way to know how much it may have been worth at some unkown time in the future when it might have actually been sold.
Because it can never be sold since it was destroyed.

The only $ amount that is abolute and undeniable, is the purchase price.
And that is the $ amount that the owner of the stamp has actually LOST.
Because the owner never possessed the 50K to begin with.


Also, just because an appraiser says it's worth 50K, doesn't mean it will actually sell for 50K.


----------



## Gerald Higgins (May 11, 2012)

I disagree with jonmo1 in saying that the compensation should be based on the original purchase price. I think a very important consideration for setting the compensation should be "What would it cost to put the victim back into the situation they were in before the damage occurred ?"

So, for example, if I bought a car 50 years ago for $200, but it's now worth $200,000 because it's vintage, and BenMiller destroys it, then the compensation should be in the region of $200,000 (plus whatever other costs there might be in actually getting hold of a replacement). And the same works in reverse. For example the price of LCD and plasma TVs has come down alot in recent years. If BenMiller smashed one that had been bought 10 years ago for $2,000, and it could be replaced for $500, then I think $500 would be appropriate.
This doesn't solve the stamp issue, as by definition the original could not be replaced.

Edit to add - Sorry jonmo1, you posted post #27 while I was writing post #28.

Take the stamp analogy to it's logical (but not impossible) extreme. The victim could quite conceivably have purchased the original stamps for 5 cents each. If purchase price is all that matters, does that mean the compensation is only 5 cents ? This seems unfair.
You might factor in general inflation, but even that might take you to only a dollar or two. Which also seems unfair.
So, you might factor in special inflation for stamps, but if you were willing to do that, why not factor in special inflation for this specific type of stamp ?
After all, imagine a slightly different situation, where there were originally THREE such stamps, and the victim owned only two. Let's say the third was traded regularly between other parties. That could give you a meaningful figure for what the other two were worth, without having to rely on some appraiser's guess.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

Btw, just a clarification: I'm only playing Devil's advocate here, I agree 100% that you should pay for the stamp. I do believe that you should pay (in a regular case) the value at the time of the damage, but I guess that's another debate


----------



## chuckchuckit (May 11, 2012)

I concur with Xenou. And after a court would be done trying to show the hard way on how to be responsible for your actions, one might want to ask themselves: Am I sorry I caused this other person harm? Or am I just sorry that I had to pay?

Those questions might reveal the condition of one's own heart towards others...

BTW "Honest Abe" now has his picture on all our pennies.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

chuckchuckit said:


> I concur with Xenou. And after a court would be done trying to show the hard way on how to be responsible for your actions, one might want to ask themselves: Am I sorry I caused this other person harm? Or am I just sorry that I had to pay?
> 
> Those questions might reveal the condition of one's own heart towards others...
> 
> BTW "Honest Abe" now has his picture on all our pennies.



This isn't a moral debate! Whether or not the perpetrator should go to prison is not the issue. Remember, this question will still apply if the action was done by mistake, the same way I pay when I hit your car in a complete accident. This is a financial obligation question, which should not be judged based on the damager's remorse for his actions, overall character, or honesty...


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

Gerald Higgins said:


> Take the stamp analogy to it's logical (but not impossible) extreme. The victim could quite conceivably have purchased the original stamps for 5 cents each. If purchase price is all that matters, does that mean the compensation is only 5 cents ? This seems unfair.


 
Who ever said life was fair?

I don't think it would be fair for me to have to pay 50k for something you only paid 5 cents for. 
5 cents is all you actually lost, because you never had the 50k it was potentially worth. 
It's only worth 50k if another party actually gives you 50k in exchange for the stamp.
This isn't a sale.
It is also potentially worhless, because you might accidentally lose or destroy it yourself before you get a change to sell it and actually possess the 50k.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> Who ever said life was fair?
> 
> I don't think it would be fair for me to have to pay 50k for something you only paid 5 cents for.
> 5 cents is all you actually lost, because you never had the 50k it was potentially worth.
> ...



So a person's worth is calculated only with cash in the bank; everything else is "potential worth"? That doesn't seem right ... idk

And the fact that I may accidentally lose it or destroy it should have no bearing whatsoever on the amount the damager pays.

I possess an object valued at $50,000 + you destroyed that object = you damaged me in the amount of $50,000.


----------



## chuckchuckit (May 11, 2012)

Ah yes... but it is a moral problem, or no court would be needed. I'll repeat my first answer that still applies:

This is all about being responsible for your actions.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Modern day trick is: If you can get people to talk long enough about “the logic” of why it is OK to be harmful because of “the benefits” of causing harm, you no longer are responsible for doing whatever harm you want.
<o></o>
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…


----------



## Gerald Higgins (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> Who ever said life was fair?


You're right, life isn't always fair. 

But I think one purpose of this whole discussion is to try and determine what "fair" actually is. 

For me, if the purchase price and replacement price happen to be widely different either way, then replacement price (including incidental costs of replacement) should be the most important consideration.

Here's another thought. Although the victim may never have "had" the $50,000 value of the stamp, the fact that it was generally considered to be worth $50,000 may have reasonably affected their behaviour towards it. For example, they may have arranged expensive security for it. Or expensive display or archiving arrangements. These are not unreasonable things to do, and getting only 5 cents compensation again seems unfair. Of course, in real life, such a person would have arranged insurance as well, if they had any sense.


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> I possess an object valued at $50,000 + you destroyed that object = you damaged me in the amount of $50,000.


 
All other posessions and monies aside...

Can you go to the bank and make a $50,000 withdrawl?
Or pull out $50,000 in cash from under your matress?
I think not.

So I only damaged you in the amount that you purchased the object for.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

What's the difference _how_ I could get the money from this? I could easily sell it and get the cash value; that's what makes it worth what it is worth.


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> What's the difference _how_ I could get the money from this? I could easily sell it and get the cash value; that's what makes it worth what it is worth.


 
That's my point, it's only worth that amount IF you sell it.
But you didn't sell it.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> That's my point, it's only worth that amount IF you sell it.
> But you didn't sell it.



Interesting article on that point ... both sides are mentioned http://bit.ly/IRGvna


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> Interesting article on that point ... both sides are mentioned http://bit.ly/IRGvna


 
Thanks, now I look like my avatar 


All I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to either the victim or the perpetrator (and yes, the perpetrator has rights too).
To value a thing based on a potential future value.
Because we can't see into the future.
Just because it's appraised at 50k, doesn't mean you can actually sell it for 50k.
You have to find someone who wants it, and also agrees that it's worth 50k.

It will take some time to actually sell it.
And anything can happen in the future to change the value of the thing.

You don't think you can just walk to a pawn shop and get 50k for it that day do you?
Or even an antiques dealer, or a stamp dealer.
They are not going to give you 50k.
They are going to give you considerably less, so that _they_ can sell it for 50k and make a profit.

In order to get the full 50k, you have to sell it direct to the person that wants it.
That will take time (and money, travel expenses) to find that person.
And it will likely take time for that person to actually come up with the 50k.

The buyer's going to want it appraised...

All kinds of stuff can go wrong so that you can't actually get the 50k.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> To value a thing based on a potential future value.



I think that that's the (potential) _current_ value! Why future? It can currently be sold for X amount, whatever X is. That's what it's valued at.



jonmo1 said:


> You don't think you can just walk to a pawn shop and get 50k for it that day do you?
> Or even an antiques dealer, or a stamp dealer.
> They are not going to give you 50k.
> They are going to give you considerably less, so that _they_ can sell it for 50k and make a profit.



Ok, so how about the amount that the pawn shop will actually pay you? What if that were $40,000? Would you consider that the value?


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> I think that that's the (potential) _current_ value! Why future? It can currently be sold for X amount, whatever X is. That's what it's valued at.


 
It's a potential future value because you can't sell it right now this very second.
As described in last post, it will take some time to actually sell it.
So it's in the future. 



BenMiller said:


> Ok, so how about the amount that the pawn shop will actually pay you? What if that were $40,000? Would you consider that the value?


 
No, because again it is still a potential future value.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

Why should time play a role in this? What if I were in the pawn shop, about to receive the money for my stamp, when this dreadful occurrence took place?


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> Why should time play a role in this? What if I were in the pawn shop, about to receive the money for my stamp, when this dreadful occurrence took place?


 
Nope, because it never actually occurred.
The money was never actually in your posession.
So therefore you never actually lost it.

If the transaction actually took place, and you had the 40K and the Pawn shop owner had the stamp..
And then I stole and destroyed the stamp from the pawn shop owner...
THEN I would owe 40k....to the pawn shop owner


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> If the transaction actually took place, and you had the 40K and the Pawn shop owner had the stamp..
> And then I stole and destroyed the stamp from the pawn shop owner...
> THEN I would owe 40k.



To who? I still have my cash, and all he has is the stamp: which now merely has a "future" value to _him_; according to your logic.


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> To who? I still have my cash, and all he has is the stamp: which now merely has a "future" value to _him_; according to your logic.


 
I would owe it to the pawn shop owner (edited previous post)...

No, it now has a purchase price of 40k.
He purchased it from you for 40k


----------



## xenou (May 11, 2012)

That seems a little harsh - things have value apart from paying money or receiving money for them.  Examples (I'm trying to think of a good one) might be patents, artwork, land, unharvested crops - even bodily limbs (which have never been paid for and may never be sold but would be due compensation if destroyed).  Not sure but I'd guess that in most such instances, if you destroy an object that belongs to someone else you will be required to pay the fair market value of the object, probably at the appraised value given by a neutral expert (if not, in fact, a value even greater).  The same would go for insurance, I think - if your house burns down you'll get the market value, not the original selling price, which if you bought the house many years ago could be a small fraction of the actual settlement.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

jonmo1 said:


> No, it now has a purchase price of 40k.
> He purchased it from you for 40k



Ahh ... I stand corrected. Sorry, I'm not used to thinking according to your logic 
So according to you, an object is always valued at the most recent purchase price, if only because that is the loss which the current owner initially sustained for the object. What if he purchased it with stolen money? (And we still haven't addressed the gift question...)


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> What if he purchased it with stolen money?


 
OK, now we're going a little crazy....lol..

In that case, he would no longer be in possession of the stamp for me to have damaged it in the first place.
Because the courts would have returned the money and the stamp to whoever the money was stolen from, and he'd probably be in jail anyway.



BenMiller said:


> (And we still haven't addressed the gift question...)


 
That does put a twist on it..
I would think it wouldn't be too hard to determine the value at the time of the gift giving.
And that IS useable because it's in the PAST, therefore Factual, and not based on unseeable future.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

And if it was done under sedatives and does not affect future wages (such as an eye), does he not pay?


----------



## xenou (May 11, 2012)

> That's pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
> Completely different scenario.



Did you in fact just say one could be compensated for money they don't have, haven't yet received, but might have received in the future had you not done this harmful deed ... sounds suspiciously like compensation for the _value_ of the lost possession, at market prices (in this case, the price of labor over time).


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

Dang you guys are fast...

But it is a different scenario.


----------



## xenou (May 11, 2012)

Yes, different - there are other considerations (the loss of a limb is irreparable even with the monetary compensation).  But similar insofar as money is a substitute for what was lost (earning potential, value of stamp) and can be used to replace, to some extent was was lost (earnings, new stamp).

I think you could abstract this back another step - what is money?  Basically it's a barter system, reduced to an easily transferable exchange medium.  The value of the stamp is the same as the value of anything that the owner of the stamp would accept in exchange (another stamp, a car, an all expense paid trip to Monaco) assuming that a willing buyer would give the same.  So it's nothing to do with money except in the abstract sense - we have become accustomed to money as the way to "value" our possessions.  I believe that the stamp owner, other stamp collectors, stamp appraisers, and (most likely) judges would be willing to accept that the value of the stamp can be put in dollar terms with at least enough accuracy to render a judgment in the, admittedly somewhat peculiar, case of the crazed stamp destroyer.  

Interestingly, at certain times in history even money has lost value to the point of becoming worthless (at which times, the stamp might be a much better possession than literally buckets full of money, and "worth" more in the open market for goods).  This is why some invest in rocks - they think that when the paper becomes worthless the tangible property of certain metals dug up from underground will be a better thing to own - silver, or gold.


----------



## BenMiller (May 11, 2012)

Interesting point - according to this view, what I mentioned before about paying with a case of mailboxes as opposed to cash would actually be a better option, as objects are what intrinsically have value, and money merely "represents" those objects.


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 11, 2012)

The only thing that gives money any value is the fact that we believe it has value.


----------



## Marbles (May 11, 2012)

The person who owned the stamp came about it through a huge amount of circumstances.
The same for the person who ripped it up.
Trying to work out the ethics assumes we free will, instead of just being part of the Big Bang.  An Explosion.


----------



## xenou (May 11, 2012)

> The only thing that gives money any value is the fact that we believe it has value.



An interesting example of this fact occurred not that long ago:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-fake-money-saved-brazil

Though we are getting away from the original question.


----------



## jeffreybrown (May 12, 2012)

This thread started off with...



BenMiller said:


> It actually came up in a Talmudic discussion we were having (yeah, I study the Talmud; I'm a religious Jew lol), I'd like to see what people say about this.



And then...



BenMiller said:


> This isn't a moral debate!



I would think as a Jew, you understand the Torah/Talmud and the moral aspects of those writings.  I imagine your discussion in itself was most likely a moral issue.



BenMiller said:


> How about this: You own two very rare stamps, each valued at $50,000. They are the only two of their kind in existence. I take one of them, rip it in half and burn it. I owe you $50,000! Right? Here's the catch. The other stamp, now being the only one in existence, has now doubled in value; and is worth $100,000.



Rare stamp, well maybe, but only in the eye of the beholder.

The second stamp should not even be part of the equation.  It's my stamp and what buisiness is it of anybody to now its worth unless I as the owner choose to share that information.  The second stamp, now worth 100K...so...what does that have to do with you destroying my possession and your responsibility for restitution.

I agree with Jonmo, $50k is only what somebody said you could get for it, not what you have in your hand.

Here in Texas I paid over $200k for my house and if I sold it today, the appraiser might estimate its worth at $230k.  If I put it on the market, but the most anybody offers me is $210K, what recourse do I have to get the appraised $230k.  Absolutely none.  I can either take the $210k or keep the house and wait until somebody is ready to fork over the appraised value.

May not be the same example, but in the end, I am still out only $200k, not the appraised $230k.  It was never mine.


----------



## xenou (May 12, 2012)

^ but surely its one thing to say the stamp is not worth $50,000 (exactly) and another to say it isn't worth a penny.  Let's just accept that the stamp has value, and with a market for rare stamps we can appraise that value with some kind of reasonableness.  The owners "guess" about the value is probably approximately the appraised value anyway.  The remark about morality is a semantic thing.  Some people define morality as "interior" attitudes (remorse), while other see that as irrelevant and prefer to think in terms of what "external" actions are required of you (restitution).  Those in the latter camp would generally not use terms like morality, but instead talk about ethics or justice.  They have some common ground though, I think - at very least they both deal with our sense of right and wrong.  Anyway, Ben meant that it doesn't matter whether the person "feels sorry" about what they did - what matters in this case is the question about what must he do to provide restitution.


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 12, 2012)

I don't think we're saying the stamp has no value at all.
Just that you can't award an appraised value as restitution for the loss of the stamp.
Simply because the owner did not actually own, therfore did not actually lose the appraised value.
The owner only owned a stamp, and only lost the $ amount that they originaly purchased the stamp for.

Back to my point that if the "Current appraised value" was LESS than the Purchase price,
I think anyone would be upset if the perpetrator was only required to repay the lesser appraised value.
If this is true, then the reverse must also be true.
You can't have it both ways.


Perhaps there's a middle gournd.

A Criminal trial for theft and/or destruction of property should only fetch the actual value lost (purchase price)

But the owner of the stamp can certainly seek the appraised value in a Civil Lawsuit.
Or even from their Insurance Company.
I think I pointed out before that is what Insurance is for, and why it's so expensive.


----------



## Gerald Higgins (May 12, 2012)

All this discussion about the difference between the value in an appraisal, and the price someone is actually willing to pay, is relevant IF the question is, what exactly is something worth ? But that's not the question. The question is, IF there should be compensation, what should that compensation be based on ? For most everyday things, I agree that determining the exact value may be difficult, if not impossible. But we can usually at least agree a realistic range of prices.

Let's take the house in jeffreybrown's example, that he bought for $200,000. 
Maybe an appraiser says it's worth $230,000. 
Maybe some other appraiser says it's worth $220,000. 
Maybe he can only ACTUALLY SELL it for $210,000.
I think it's reasonable to say that if is house is destroyed by a criminal act, then IF the criminal should pay compensation for that loss, then the compensation should be IN THE REGION of $210,000 to $230,000.
The difference between these two numbers is of no importance to this debate whatsover.
The point is, jeffreybrown's compensation should be linked to the price he would have to pay to restore him to the position he was in before the crime.

And I really think the purchase price is totally irrelevant here.
Consider these alternative ways he could have acquired the house.
1) He bought it, and paid $200,000.
2) He bought it 40 years ago, and paid $2,000 for it.
3) He bought it 5 years ago, and paid $300,000 for it, because the housing market was at a peak.
4) He bought it, and paid $500,000, because he really likes it alot, even though no-one else does, and also the vendor was a family friend and he wanted to do them a favour.
5) He won it in a poker game.
6) He didn't buy it, he built it himself, and he has no idea how much it cost.
7) He bought it using a currency that no longer exists (maybe unrealistic in the USA, but definitely possible in Europe, before the Euro)
8) He inherited it
9) He was given it as a gift
10) He got it through a bartering transaction, maybe exchanging it for some labour or some other commodities.
11) He acquired it somehow, but for personal reasons he does not want to divulge how he acquired it or what price (if any) he paid for it.
12) He bought it many years ago, and no longer remembers exactly how much he paid for it, or no longer has documents to support his recollection of how much he paid for it.

All of these are POSSIBLE ways that one could acquire things of value, even if they might be technically impossible ways of buying a HOUSE in the USA.
IF purchase price is everything, then the criminal would have to pay potentially vastly different compensation, and in some cases no compensation at all, or the amount of compensation could be absolutely impossible to determine (and not just impossible to determine precisely).

To me, this is self evidently wrong.

And consider as well - imagine there were two identical adjacent houses, acquired by different people at entirely different prices, but otherwise identical, that were both destroyed in the same criminal act.

Using the purchase price argument, the criminal would pay (possibly very) different amounts to each victim. 

To me, this is also self evidently wrong.

And one/the solution, is to base compensation on re-instatement costs.


----------



## xladept (May 12, 2012)

Just like the Phoenix the remaining stamp is the only one in the world and, as such, is now priceless - You owe me $50K

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="342"><colgroup><col width="342"></colgroup><tbody><tr height="17">   <td style="height:12.75pt;width:257pt" height="17" width="342">You can't do one   thing.  XLAdept</td> </tr></tbody></table>


----------



## PaddyD (May 13, 2012)

Just driving by, but it seems that the following might help / be relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy


----------



## BenMiller (May 13, 2012)

Interesting... on a similar note, if I break a window in your house do I even need to pay at all? After all, the overall value of the house did not change...


----------



## circledchicken (May 13, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> Interesting... on a similar note, if I break a window in your house do I even need to pay at all? After all, the overall value of the house did not change...


Surely the overall value of the house is reduced by the value of the window (even if the value of the window is small relative to the house)? And the window might be a very expensive window - in which case I'm sure you would agree that breaking it reduces the value of the house? 

And perhaps even more, perhaps breaking the window diminishes the value of the surrounding area, heightens the owners security concerns, increases their insurance premiums etc.


----------



## BenMiller (May 13, 2012)

It does not affect the resale (appraised) value of the house.


----------



## circledchicken (May 13, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> It does not affect the resale (appraised) value of the house.


Why not?


----------



## BenMiller (May 13, 2012)

A house valued at $200,000 will not go down in value because of one broken window. Ask anyone who does appraisals for a living; I think it's fairly obvious.

If we agree that the damager must pay in the amount of the current market value of the item he damaged, in this case he may be completely unobligated to pay. The owner cannot possibly sell the attached window by itself; so that has no market value. The house itself did not go down in value either.


----------



## Smitty (May 13, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> It does not affect the resale (appraised) value of the house.


 
I beg to diasgree.  Having been in the window manufacturing business for a while, and living in one of the most volatile real estate markets in the US (northern California), I can attest to the fact that broken windows will affect resale value.  Sometimes far more than the window replacement itself would be worth, because the prospective owner has a niggling point that has to be conceded.

Anecdotally, I was in England as a kid and not knowing any better, drove a croquet ball like a golf ball, which then went through a 16th century leaded glass window at the estate where we were staying.  I (my father) had to pay the full restoration/replacement cost for the window, which was more than a few hundred pounds, but it couldn't have been replaced with modern glass.

But that's probably an extreme example.


----------



## circledchicken (May 13, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> A house valued at $200,000 will not go down in value because of one broken window. Ask anyone who does appraisals for a living; I think it's fairly obvious.


Ok, so at what point does the value start going down? How many windows need to be broken before the appraiser re-thinks his/her estimate?


----------



## BenMiller (May 13, 2012)

Idk, but how about a building? A skyscraper with one broken window cannot possibly be worth a penny less!


----------



## circledchicken (May 13, 2012)

BenMiller said:


> Idk, but how about a building? A skyscraper with one broken window cannot possibly be worth a penny less!


If the window doesn't add any value whatsoever to the skyscraper - why go through the trouble of fitting it in the first place?

Lets assume the overall value of the window to the worth of the skyscraper is only one penny (I think it would be significantly more..) - isn't that still a fall in the value of the skyscraper by one penny? It may not be enough to merit the efforts of the appraiser to revalue the entire skyscraper, so he/she might choose to ignore it for the moment - but the skyscraper has still lost some value. 

If the deviant who broke the first window goes on a rampage breaking a thousand more windows, then surely it starts adding up at some point and the appraiser can't ignore the losses in value forever (however incremental they might be).


----------



## xladept (May 13, 2012)

What was I thinking?

You owe me $100K having ruined the pair.

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="342"><colgroup><col width="342"></colgroup><tbody><tr height="17">   <td style="height:12.75pt;width:257pt" height="17" width="342">You can't do one   thing.  XLAdept</td> </tr></tbody></table>


----------



## Jonmo1 (May 13, 2012)

Again, we're talking about the difference between
1. The appraised price
2. The price that a 3rd party actually pays to complete a purchase transaction.

And a broken window most certainly effects #2.


----------

