The Value of Zero

Update 4: David Glasner thinks I made a mistake. But I did not make a mistake. If there is a machine whose only possible function or use is to expel assets with a zero reference value, the machine's base value is zero. There are many financial assets where the only possible function or use is to withdraw legal currency. When the basic value of Fiat money is always the same as zero (as Williamson asserts), the basic value of these financial assets is always the same.

It is not an average, no. However, if the basic value of the currency is exactly zero, it means zero. Since the finite number multiplied by zero is still zero, we use Steve's "base value" definition. Importance does not matter. The expected "discount" expected "basic" value from the payment stream of stocks or bonds (currency) is completely zero. Regarding the definition of "bubble", Steve insists that I do not agree with his definition ("price> base value"), but in reality I am not opposed to it. And it is crashing "), I think this is perfectly problematic

According to this definition, since the currency does not pay dividends, the price of money is higher than its basic value, therefore the base value is zero. Also, according to this definition, since we do not pay coupons for T-bill, the basic amount of T-bill will be zero. In other words, according to this definition, the market value of bond redemption payment is not included in its basic value. I can now solve half of this problem for you: Allen and Morris (This is the only article I have ever read, but almost certainly Postalewaite) I am a better theorist . Remember all the people who wish theorist, learn from these people, and define your technical terms clearly and accurately!