View Single Post
Old 09-22-2008, 11:24 PM   #4 (permalink)
Assassin™
Whoops.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "O'er the land of the free, and the home of the SOONERS!!!"
Posts: 1,536
vCash: 500
Rep Power: 0
Assassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World ChampionAssassin™ is World Champion

Awards Showcase
Sour Lem0nz Best Thread Starter Sour Lem0nz Sour Lem0nz 
Total Awards: 4

Re: Why hippies will save America (slightly sarcastic).

Quote:
Promise probably wasn't the best word. Hope would've been better, I guess. My point was that even though the ideas behind them likely won't work, they're a bit of a figurehead in that we can move forward and further develop.

The Tesla vehicles, which are all electric powered, I feel are in a similar boat. I doubt their longevity, but what they can do is show that it is possible.
It wasn't the word choice that I was griping about. "hope" and "promise" have little connotative difference here.

What I'm asking is how, from an economic perspective, are these things supposedly giving us hope/promise? Developments in green energy being a "figurehead" representing how we can "move forward" (technologically?) is all well in good, but what I'm asking is, in the context of a recession, why does any of that matter? You were presenting green energy as if it was a lifeboat for the American economy, but I'm just not sure how you came to that conclusion, especially if you're also acknowledging that these projects aren't going to be good long-term business plans.

Quote:
Their worth, basically. People will invest more than necessary thinking they may end up being worth more.
...I know what the literal meaning of "over valued market" is, it was just previously unclear to me exactly which market you were talking about.

Quote:
To be truthful, I'm not 100% certain of the answer to that question.
I would think that at this stage it would be good though for it to be under-valued as it would drive additional investors onto the scene. The investors would then bid with one another for the investments in the companies, which would then drive the values up ridiculously high causing the over-valuation. If it were to be over-valued from the start, then the investors would shy away, and the market would either never take off or prematurely crash.
So basically, you agree with me? This was what I was originally responding to:

Quote:
Things like sawgrass paper, or generating electricity out of our garbage sounds real hopeful, but is it a solid business plan? Really, I doubt it. What this gives us though is promise, and more importantly, a ridiculously over valued market.
Seeing as how you just went on to explain how much better an under-valued market would be, did I misunderstand you in thinking that you were originally presenting an over-valued market as a good thing?
Assassin™ is offline   Reply With Quote