|
|
|
|
|
|
by fidotron
968 days ago
|
|
|
> It wasn't worth $44B when he bought it, so I'm not sure why the NY Times would even use that number in any way. If I pay someone $100,000 for a stick they found on the side of the road, it doesn't make that stick worth $100k. This is almost exactly how accounting works. Whenever they want to decide how much something is worth the answer is the most someone else would pay for it. Doesn't make it less insane, especially in the presence of idiots with huge sums of money. |
|
|