Stamp Debate

[BenMiller]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

(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]

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