you guys know that's not how inflation works right?

I dont see the issue here. 

1 dollar was worth a lot more 30 years ago then 1 dollar is worth today. So going by that simple fact Sony is worth less now then it was 30 years ago, even though the number is the same.

Unless stock prices compensate for inflation, which I am not aware of and therefore apologize if thats true. 

Well, I don't disagree with any of your other points except the actual value of Sony's assets. Sony owns a lot of media brands, including classic music and movies, along with a number of other patents and copywrights that Apple could benefit from. Normally, a simple contract out to Sony would be the best choice, but considering how cheap it is to just buy Sony out...

re-read that and then try again

1 dollar was worth a lot more 30 years ago then 1 dollar is worth today. So going by that simple fact Sony is worth less now then it was 30 years ago, even though the number is the same.

makes sense to me. the value of 1 US dollar thrity years ago was more than the value of 1 US dollar now. inflation. so is there something missing? i dont see it.

Currency inflates in part, because the economy itself has inflated. When a economy gets bigger it needs even more money to function. In a real sense some inflation reflects a healthy economy, because the economy is expanding, and needs more money to conduct transactions. Inflation gets a bad rap when currency devalues faster then a given economy is growing. This can be caused by trade disparities, resource shortages, or bad economic policies.

Speaking to this subject inflation isn't a friend to Sony, because the stock is not in line with inflation. Since the value of the money has decreased so has the value of the stock. Lets say that fifteen dollars then is equal to say twenty dollars today. Then the stock should be worth twenty dollars, but instead it is worth twenty five percent less money. Now if you want to adjust the price of the stock for inflation in accordance with what the money was worth at the time the stock was purchased.

That fifteen dollars actually equates out to be eleven dollars and twenty five cents. So you lost three dollars and seventy five cents on that stock purchase. You retained no equity, because the stock did not stay in line with how much the economy inflated during the given time frame. You have lost purchasing power on this transaction. To be fair though that isn't actually the case for those who held onto the stock for thirty years, because they did in fact receive dividends from the stock. When you own stock you get paid a share of the profits that a company makes. Now for a single stock that may be as little as a dime or nickle a year, but seeing as Sony had some very good years. Chances are that those long term investors actually beat inflation on the dividends.

So in a sense the investors from thirty years ago aren't too badly off. Even if the stock slips further they may just make or beat inflation on the whole. The people that are clenching their teeth are the ones who bought in when the stock was very high. Those are the people that are probably going to take the real losses. They probably lost more money on the stock then anyone else, and dividends even very long term aren't likely to add up to the cost out of pocket let alone cover the inflation of currency.

To put it succinctly the stock is actually worth less then it was thirty years ago, because in the intervening time span the value of the money decreased. Sony is actually doing worse then going back to square one if that is how some of you are seeing this.

So if Sony was worth the same 100 billion back then, they would be worth the same amount now? if these losses were posted back then, it would be the same amount now.

you guys are aware inflation effects the whole of the world and not just Sony right?

the reaching here is starting to get worrying, (it used to be funny but now it's sad)

So you really think losing 100 billion 30 years ago is the same than losing 100 billions now? Then explain us why the governments use a measure as the CPI. What you just said shows that you talk without knowing nothing of economy, you just said that you would have to make the same effort to pay a 599 US$ PC now than a 599 US$ NeoGeo on 1994. Learn of what you're going to talk before giving wrong lessons to others, and please, leave your superiority complex at home.

no, I don't think that, they think that...did you even bother reading?