Valuation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Though many persist in their denial, [[valuation]] is one of the great intractable ontological conundrums of the financial markets: in few other contexts does a [[Mediocre lawyer|jobbing attorney]] regularly get so close to the [[abyss]]. Really, close enough to press her nose against the glass, and stare balefully into the formless void where her intricate hermeneutic system runs out of rope<ref> | Though many persist in their denial, [[valuation]] is one of the great intractable ontological conundrums of the financial markets: in few other contexts does a [[Mediocre lawyer|jobbing attorney]] regularly get so close to the [[abyss]]. Really, close enough to press her nose against the glass, and stare balefully into the formless void where her intricate hermeneutic system runs out of rope<ref>“She who fights monsters should be careful lest she ''becomes'' a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you.” — {{author|Friedrich Nietzsche}}, freely (that is, inexpertly) translated by the [[JC]].</ref> {{sex|She}} can but watch in existential horror as the frayed hanks of her [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] hemp fringe that [[Omega|infinite vacuum]]. | ||
Even the most [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous haggler]] must, at some stage, just wave away the [[dealer poll|dealer polls]], [[arbitration]] procedures, [[co-calculation agent]]s, [[agreement to agree|agreements to agree]], mutually appointed experts and give up. | Even the most [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous haggler]] must, at some stage, just wave away the [[dealer poll|dealer polls]], [[arbitration]] procedures, [[co-calculation agent]]s, [[agreement to agree|agreements to agree]], mutually appointed experts and give up. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{draft}}{{egg}} | {{draft}}{{egg}} | ||
[[Category:Metaphysics]] | [[Category:Metaphysics]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Revision as of 10:09, 13 February 2019
Though many persist in their denial, valuation is one of the great intractable ontological conundrums of the financial markets: in few other contexts does a jobbing attorney regularly get so close to the abyss. Really, close enough to press her nose against the glass, and stare balefully into the formless void where her intricate hermeneutic system runs out of rope[1] She can but watch in existential horror as the frayed hanks of her metaphysical hemp fringe that infinite vacuum.
Even the most assiduous haggler must, at some stage, just wave away the dealer polls, arbitration procedures, co-calculation agents, agreements to agree, mutually appointed experts and give up.
No president of the Law Society, yet, has been asked to intercede between warring factions to an illiquid credit derivative.
See also
References
- ↑ “She who fights monsters should be careful lest she becomes a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you.” — Friedrich Nietzsche, freely (that is, inexpertly) translated by the JC.