Topic: Should money have intrisic value ? - page 2. (Read 10564 times)

But we don't believe in the intrinsic theory of value!

Intrinsic value have place in our subjective theory of value! It simply mean utility other than monetary utility. Get it?

People, please, stop spreading misinformation! There's no such thing as intrinsic value, this is a fallacy. A fallacy on which Marxism is based, by the way!

intrinsic (comparative more intrinsic, superlative most intrinsic)

• innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential
• (of a body part, relating to anatomy) comprising, being part of a whole

Therefore, by the definition of instrinsic, and by the fact that value is subjective (it's an opinion people have on stuff, not something innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself), intrinsic value is a contradiction in terms.

Also, do not confuse utility with value. Water is a buzillion times more useful than gold, nevertheless gold is much more valuable.

lol.  Indeed !


The guy is talking about bitcoin, without even knowing it

A zerohedge article form today says intrinsic value should be 0, but gold will do as a substitute. The article pretty much describes the problem to which bitcoin is a solution.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-gold-improbable-answer-life-universe-and-everything

Electronics, decorative use, industrial application, etc.

Bitcoin? Umm.....

Don't get me wrong I really like gold and silver and am in both, but honestly, if denied access to a functioning marketplace what do I use them for?

"If you see the price of gold go up beyond $2000 you might want to sell some of your gold and buy lead"
-Robert Kiyosaki

Thank you.

I never claimed different.  The intrinsic value of a money is not additive to it's trade value.  The intrinsic value of a money functions as a 'price floor', supporting the market value of the money in times that it's trade value drops below it's intrinsic value, such as during times of war.  Bitcoin is an excellent currency, but has no value to anyone that is denied (by war, fiat, or otherwise) access to a functioning marketplace.  At least the peanuts are still food.


Again, it's not simply a matter of semantics for me to correct you here, since in context we are using econimic definitions.  Bitcoin has all the qualities of a fine currency.


Bitcoin does not require intrinsic value to function well as a medium of exchange, but gold does not support your statement.  Gold has quite a bit of intrinsic value, which is one reason that it has been such a sound money for over 5000 years.

Very, very well stated.

However, I still think it is semantic, if peanuts were used as trade but also as food that could also be said to give them "alternative" value. If they were no longer money, they could still be food, but a better peanut-variety could supplant them as a desirable food source and then they'd be back to square one. Perhaps they could then be used in a bio fuel plant. The fact that a peanut is more versatile than a bitcoin and from a semantic POV has more "intrinsic value" does not make it more valuable as a currency.

Bitcoin lacks "alternative value" as something else outside maybe an experiment in cryptography. This is somewhat unimportant since all the qualities it does have makes it a pretty decent form of money.

If "alternative value" == "intrinisc value" then I'd have to answer the question "Should money have intrisic value?" with a resounding no. Both bitcoin and gold prove this.

"Intrinsic value" is a value beyond what the object has as a medium of exchange.  For example, a peanut farmer cannot eat all his crop (perhaps he doesn't even like peanuts), so his crop has no intrinisc value for himself.  However, he sells his products to people who, presumedly, do have a use for said peanuts.  To the farmer, the peanut crop has little or no intrinsic value, but to the general population it does.  As a result, the crop has a real market value that is independent of it's trade value (to the farmer) and independent of speculative value.  Said another way, even if peanuts were used as a medium of exchange in his twon, the farmer's crop value would not drop to zero with the introduction of a better medium of exchange, such as silver coins.  Likewise, a mattress or shelter also has a definable value outside of the context of their trade value.

Thus, a paper currency has little intrinisc value.

It is necessary for people to have a highly liquid means of trade same as it is necessary for them to sleep comfortably or have comfortable shelter. A house or a bed can then be said to have no intrinsic value but "shelter value" and "sleep value". The discussion is semantic. We need money, else trade is going to be laborious and inefficient. It is filling these needs that grants money its usefulness to us, its 'value'.

That's not intrinsic value, that's monetary value. Very different thing.

Money/currency has intrinsic value because people need and value the abilities to:

1.Trade in something that is widely accepted for almost any other good/service.
2.Highly divisible.
3.Non perishable
4.Could act as a store of value. (Though this is somewhat optional)

Even ZimDollars had intrinsic value while in use if we look at what money is useful for. Although it's relative value compared to other goods and services was in continuous decline.

BitCoin fully fulfills these requirements even adding more features and therefore has "intrinsic" value. Saying that money has no intrinsic value is an existential observation akin to saying food has no value since you will die anyway. Money is an crucial means to a desired end.

The penny is copper plated zinc, and the nickel is nickel plated steel.  There is no intrinsic value, of any significance, to any part of the US monetary system.

Nuclear fusion reaction?

I've noticed that, at least in the U.S.A., the lack of intrinsic value to our is an increasing cause of concern to those of us who participate in the economy (which would be almost all of us). it concerns me personally that when (at this rate it's not an if) our economy fails my penny jar will be my only currency of value (based on commodity copper alloy prices) other than the size of my food and ammo stock piles. I'm not suggesting that a distributed currency has to be composed of a commodity, or even tangible, but it should at least have some legitimate positive equity backing it.

This is not necessarily my best suggestion, but perhaps the currency could be based on some average of labor equity. Years ago the Akron Friends Service Committee (a local branch of a Quaker based social association) put forward a local alternative (to the exiting national one) economy, the standard currency was called the "Summit hour" (after their county of operation). The "Summit hour" was based on the contemporary average hourly wage in the county which, if I remember right, around $5 and some change American. Primarily the currency was used between members of the AFSC, for private sales and services, but some area businesses participated in the program too. Given the mission of Wirtland, a labor equity based economy might be a good way to go. Perhaps the base unit of currency could be valued as a combination of the average wage of Witizens (converted to I.U.C.s) and the tangible (investments and donations, converted to I.U.C.s) assets of Wirtland. I'm not really sure how to do it exactly, these are issues for the banking geeks to hammer out the particulars of.   

Ok its an atom... which only furthers my point, even less destructable

But wallets are, until you back them up multiple time and encrypted all of them...

IMO the bitcoin chain is probably the most indestructible piece of Data on the Internet.

(and gold is not a molecule)

Bitcoin isn't indestructible. The reason why gold is good is because its a molecule. its hard to change/destroy molecules.

I think we all agree here. It's just that....

Intrinsic and intrinsic value of theory  got confused together.