Anything…NFTs, art, gold, real estate, sex…what have you, is only worth what with someone is willing to pay for it. But at least with gold, art, beanie babies or baseball cards, you actually take possession of something that has mass.
It’s only nominally a baseball movie, it’s a classic, and you’re totally ignoring the existence of The Bad News Bears Go to Japan
1 Like
I bet you’re one of those grinches who argues that Die Hard is not a Christmas movie.
I admit I was until I realized that Hans Gruber is a play on Franz Gruber, writer of Silent Night.
And John McClane’s wife “Holly”. Yeah, it may as well been a fucking Hallmark Channel movie.
1 Like
You still own it, even if it’s not tangible. In your mind, that gives it less value than a “thing”, but that just means you aren’t a potential buyer.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with digital ownership of virtual thing, albeit that it will have a much smaller market. It’s not like you can’t take a screenshot of a hi-res photo of the Mona Lisa or a Mickey Mantle rookie card, and then print it for a tangible copy, but you still don’t own the original.
I never said it has less value , only that if it loses the value placed by others, it can’t be repurposed. I can still use a baseball card, even if it’s otherwise worthless. A photo of the Mona Lisa can still be a wall hanger.
1 Like
I’d actually watch the Hallmark Channel for that.
If some slick marketing company started advertising and selling air at a low low price of one dollar per gulp, the number of people who would line up to buy said air would be something other than zero. PT Barnum was quite right.
1 Like
I just don’t get the idea that these “alternative currencies” like crypto and NFT will replace standard
Dollars or Euros.
Now, what do I do with all these Dutch tulips?
1 Like
Just recently listened to an Ezra Klein podcast with a crypto skeptic. One of the tidbits was that the largest NFT purchase (close to 70 mil) was done basically to create value, or rather the illusion of value, in order to create a derivative market (second level scam) for NFTs. Pretty much over my head, but the basic gist was that the purchaser had ulterior motives for the super high price.
Emperor has no clothes kind of thing.
1 Like
Because the reality is, wearing clothes just gets in the way of having his dick sucked.
As I consider all investing basically gambling with some lipstick on it, I apply the poker rule to it: if you look around the table, and you can’t spot the mug, it’s you.
But once a photo or tweet is out on the internet, what value could it have? If it’s an image, is it really worth the effort to go after the Etsy shops selling it on tshirts or canvas prints? I’m no boomer, but I really don’t get these NFTs, although I don’t really get owning a photograph so there you go. Yeah you can charge Dateline for using the pic, but you can’t go after every blog, tweet or viral Facebook post that uses the pic. You’d go nuts. But, I suppose the coin generated by having NBC or CNN pay for your property is worth it.
I may go to the theater to see this one.
1 Like
Quill: “Look into the eyes of the ones you love”
Thor: /keeps trying to look into Quill’s eyes
Me: //explodes with laughter
1 Like
Did you notice that Thor’s eyes are back to being the same color? Seems to me that the trailer made a point to highlight that.
Oh hell yes.
More Korg!