I understood with greater clarity and conciseness.
Numbers and models speak clear to me, so theres one data point
Maybe I'm a little out of my depth criticizing an article by two professors from a college of law, but how on earth can you attempt to define scamming without mentioning fraud? The con-man willfully misrepresents his part of the transaction despite knowing the mark to believe otherwise. And it isn't a matter of subjective degree. In the Nigerian Prince scheme, for example, there is no prince, and there is no diamond fund tied up in escrow. It's a complete fabrication. That's the difference between market persuasion and crime.
Does a work of art have any objective value? Well, the value is generated by society being pursuaded that it has value. It’s ability to continue to sustain value is dependent on continual re-buy-in of that premise.