If you read my previous posts you would know that I have no problem with a trading approach. I have no problem buying something intrinsically worthless and selling it to someone else for more than I paid for it. Similarly, I am not short GOOG and never was (I almost never trade stocks from the short side for other reasons). What I am saying is that google lacks intrinsic value, which by definition is indubitably true. It would be the antithesis of a value investment and would have a very negative margin of safety. To be clear, I do NOT believe that price converges to intrinsic value over time. The market has provided ample evidence that that is not the case outside of bankruptcy. In fact price is typically much higher than intrinsic value, which is why there are limited targets for value investing. So something like shorting GOOG because the price is $500 higher than the intrinsic value or whatever would be an absurd concept for a trade - there's no reason the spread couldn't go to $1000.
So if GOOG was selling for 1 cent a share, you think it would be a terrible investment liable to lose 100%? You wouldn't buy anything at that price?