[ooz]

I'm not making that comparison. Not sure where you got that from. If you want me to make that comparison:

The net effect of taking that cash out and burning it or spending it on an Apple 1 assembly is the same. It devalued the moment you bought it as you have shrunk the market.

Could have thrown it at a charity.

[tjr]

The net effect of taking that cash out and burning it or spending it on an Apple 1 assembly is the same.

How so? Now, whoever sold the Apple 1 assembly has $900k. What will they do with that money? Presumably not burn it.

[ctdonath]

Burned cash no longer exists. (Which, by imputation, slightly raises the value of existing cash.)

This Apple 1 continues to exist (as does the money paid for it), and may be sold again - likely for much more than it cost the current owner. It didn't devalue, being a unique historical artifact (ok, 1 of about a dozen functioning Apple 1s), instead it likely increased value precisely because he won't sell until someone is willing to pay more for it - and with the increasing influence of Apple, and increased prices paid for artifacts, there likely will.

Your grasp of basic economics is...fractured.

[deelowe]

How is purchasing a good analogous to burning money? How is donating to any charity somehow immediately more appropriate?

I'm not sure anyone knows the absolute correct way to allocate goods, services, and resources. Charities don't always prove beneficial to the cause they are supporting and investors and corporations can do a lot of good.

Who knows where this money will go eventually, but it certainly won't magically burst into flame. Perhaps preserving and apple 1 will provide a huge benefit to society one day?

People thought computing and lasers were pointless endeavors for decades as well.