On "intrinsic value" and why it actually means "subjective value"

[WiW]

What is "intrinsic"?
According to Mirriam Webster: "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing". We are talking about something absolute. The absolute property of a thing.

And what is "value"?
Here it is said to be "relative worth, utility, or importance". This is relative. The relative relation someone has with a thing.

So when someone says "intrinsic value", do they mean that something relative (value) can be absolute (intrinsic)?

Well, you see, "intrinsic value" is simply what a gold lover would call "intrinsic property that I value". Gold has intrinsic properties that are worth some people's time and effort. But if this gold lover would be stuck on a desert island thristy and hungry with nobody to help him or trade with, he would probably have no interest whatsoever in gold. Even though it is a powerful metal and conducts electricity.

So when people say "instrinsic value" what they mean is "intrsinsic property for which people usually assign value, but not everyone and not always". I call that subjective value.

See, if you gave me a piece of gold, I'd hold on to it. Not because I need it. I'd hold on to it because I know someone else will want it. Maybe that someone else wants it because they want to make a piece of jewlery. But even though I don't make jewlery, I still understand that this piece of gold has something intrinsic about it that makes it valuable to someone else.

The same can be said about sheep (for shepards), peanuts (for elephants), dollars (for coke sniffers), and bitcoins (for anyone with a computer or smartphone).

If you ever want to say "intrinsic value" ever again, please instead say "subjective value". And from now on you can say that bitcoins have "subjective value", because I personally am willing to give you work or money for them.

[1714474234]

1714474234

[1714474234]

1714474234

[1714474234]

1714474234

[1714474234]

1714474234

[1714474234]

1714474234

[BTC Books]

Philologically, you are absolutely correct.

It would be nice if the world worked that way...

As it is, using the language as it is spoken and commonly understood is much more useful.  Especially when trying to explain some of the finer points of the complexity that is bitcoin.

[Melonhead]

All value is subjective: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

[btcmind]

Aristotle wrote in his politics, roughly 2300 years ago

The uses of every possession are two, both dependent upon the thing itself, but not in the same manner, the one supposing an inseparable connection with it, the other not; as a shoe, for instance, which may be either worn, or exchanged for something else, both these are the uses of the shoe; for he who exchanges a shoe with some man who wants one, for money or provisions, uses the shoe as a shoe, but not according to the original intention, for shoes were not at first made to be exchanged. The same thing holds true of all other possessions; for barter, in general, had its original beginning in nature, some men having a surplus, others too little of what was necessary for them: hence it is evident, that the selling provisions for money is not according to the natural use of things; for they were obliged to use barter for those things which they wanted; but it is plain that barter could have no place in the first, that is to say, in family society; but must have begun when the number of those who composed the community was enlarged: for the first of these had all things in common; but when they came to be separated they were obliged to exchange with each other many different things which both parties wanted.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm

[Trader Steve]

From https://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-myth-of-intrinsic-value/

The Myth of "Intrisic Value"

Many folks make the argument that Bitcoin has no “intrinsic value”. What they fail to realize is that no thing has “intrinsic value” – not even gold. No thing has value in and of itself. Value is a verb. In order for something to have value it must be “valued” by someone.

Value is subjective.

Bitcoin is not “backed” by anything and neither is gold. Neither has to be backed by anything. Some people value gold for what it is and what it allows you to do with it. Some people value bitcoin for what it is and what it allows you to do with it.

Bitcoin is a new commodity created to serve the market demand for a better medium of exchange (https://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/bitcoin-a-new-commodity-created-to-serve-market-demand/).

[wopwop]

intrinsic is its atoms. intrinsic means its real, either atoms or photons. intrinsic's value == weight or energy.

bitcoin is not real, it's just some numbers that ppl agree on. so no, its not intrinsic, sorry.

[Mike Christ]

Hypothetically, a pill that absolved the body of a certain type of cancer would have an incredible amount of value.

However, because I have a cancer-free body, as do my peers and relatives, I prescribe it no value.

Thus, the value of said pill would be subjective.  The objective value would be the cost of production.

I have no idea where people got this "intrinsic value" stuff from.  Something has value because we prescribe it value.  That is all.

[Mike Christ]

I have no idea where people got this "intrinsic value" stuff from.  Something has value because we prescribe it value.  That is all.

I told you already where intrinsic value comes from. Try surviving without the star we call our Sun. It has intrinsic value to us. It's essential to our survival.

Sorry, I hadn't read your post   I can't think of an argument against that; however, intrinsic value when applied to gold makes little sense, which is where I often see it coupled.  It has some handy qualities but nothing we couldn't live without.

[Mike Christ]

I have no idea where people got this "intrinsic value" stuff from.  Something has value because we prescribe it value.  That is all.

I told you already where intrinsic value comes from. Try surviving without the star we call our Sun. It has intrinsic value to us. It's essential to our survival.

Sorry, I hadn't read your post   I can't think of an argument against that; however, intrinsic value when applied to gold makes little sense, which is where I often see it coupled.  It has some handy qualities but nothing we couldn't live without.

I addressed gold in the same post! o_0

I'm going back to bed lol

[frozen]

Intrinsic value means value that is intrinsic to that which gives value.

So, coke is it and it is coke? Tautology.

If A is required for B's survival, A has intrinsic value to B.

Things with intrinsic value to humans. Sun. Earth. Water. Oxygen. Nourishment.

If A is required for B's survival AND B prefers to survive, then B must acquire A. Thus, A is has value to B.

Intrinsic is entirely redundant here. The question of survivability is still a matter of personal preference.

You can use the word intrinsic without using the word value. An intrinsic property of gold is that it is malleable.

What's the difference between a property and an intrinsic property? Malleability is simply a property of gold.

[frozen]

I have no idea where people got this "intrinsic value" stuff from.  Something has value because we prescribe it value.  That is all.

I told you already where intrinsic value comes from. Try surviving without the star we call our Sun. It has intrinsic value to us. It's essential to our survival.

There's a step missing from this logic. You appear to presume that surviving is the default; an inalienable position, but it's not. It's a fundamental preference. The sun only has value to those that actually wish to live.

And so, the word intrinsic continues to have zero value to me.

[thefiniteidea]

.

[WiW]

intrinsic is its atoms. intrinsic means its real, either atoms or photons. intrinsic's value == weight or energy.

So shit has intrinsic value because it has weight or energy?

bitcoin is not real, it's just some numbers that ppl agree on. so no, its not intrinsic, sorry.

If you want to argue that numbers aren't real, fine. But even numbers have intrinsic properties. The number 2 has an intrinsic property that it is the sum of 1+1. You can't separate the two, just like you can't separate the atoms of a gold bar from the gold bar.

I told you already where intrinsic value comes from. Try surviving without the star we call our Sun. It has intrinsic value to us. It's essential to our survival.

This is getting ridiculous because no medium of exchange can be compared to the sun, but let's go for it. What about all these large and micro-organisms that live without the sun, at all. Do they see the sun as having intrinsic value?

Now you'll say, "no, only for all the other organisms" and then I'll say, "see, that's subjective."

[John Self]

I don't think you can pin down a definition for abstract concepts that will stick for every context because people use their own meanings, though I admire this as a well thought-out clarification of the language.

The sad truth is that most people aren't intellectually equipped to think about abstract language in this amount of detail, and many smart people don't bother thinking about it either; so you're going to run in to trouble and disagreement whenever you say something like "x means y by ever law of nature and sanity, therefore when people say x they are implying y whether they think so or not"- people usually stick to the definition they like to use, or whatever one is working well for them at the time.

[Melonhead]

I have no idea where people got this "intrinsic value" stuff from.  Something has value because we prescribe it value.  That is all.

I told you already where intrinsic value comes from. Try surviving without the star we call our Sun. It has intrinsic value to us. It's essential to our survival.

But you're wrong. There is no such thing as intrinsic value. You need an economic actor to be involved. And everyone assesses value differently. But yet you still seem to dimly understand that value is subjective: "It [the sun] has intrinsic value to us". You simply assume that everyone values the sun equally (due to some property of the sun called "value"). Not true. A suicidal person - seconds before putting a bullet into his own head - does not value the sun at all. To him, the sun has no value. So, if even one person thinks the sun has no value, and someone else thinks the sun is very valuable, then logically the sun can have no intrinsic value.

Economically speaking, there is nothing special about survival. The desire for, manner of, and value of one's survival is subjective, and so too is the value we subjectively assign to those things that facilitate that survival. As an aside, our differing assessments of value is what makes economic trade possible. In economics it's called "double coincidence of wants".

For example, if I want a cancer drug to cure my cancer, and you have a bottle of it you are willing to sell to me, then I need to value my money less than your cancer drug and you need to value my money more than the cancer medicine that you possess. We must value each others possessions more than we value our own. Only then can trade occur.

This was Aristotle's mistake. He (and all the ancients) believed that trade occurred when two people recognized the equality of the intrinsic value of each others possessions. But this failed to explain commerce satisfactorily and also led to the classic paradox of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value) also known as the diamond-water paradox (since water is essential to life, and diamonds are not, why are diamonds considered more valuable than water?). Carl Menger solved problem. The answer is here specifically: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/lilburne/archive/2009/07/12/231498.aspx, and here generally: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/lilburne/pages/224503.aspx.

[frozen]

By "us" I mean people who want to continue living, obviously...

The point is, without the sun, no one lives, regardless of what they want. It doesn't really matter how much you value the sun, without it you cease to exist (until we find ways around this problem). Therefor, if you wish to live, the sun is valuable to you.

You may or may not want to live, that is subjective. You can not live without the sun, that is not subjective.

The absence of the word intrinsic from your post here is interesting. Was that intentional?

Do you continue to believe that the sun, as a consequence of being required for human life, possesses intrinsic value?

A property of human life is that it requires the sun. This is a property of human life, not a property of the sun.

If the subjective theory of value is valid, then there cannot be anything which possesses non-subjective value. Value requires an observer. In the absence of any observers, there's no value.

[frozen]

By "us" I mean people who want to continue living, obviously...

The point is, without the sun, no one lives, regardless of what they want. It doesn't really matter how much you value the sun, without it you cease to exist (until we find ways around this problem). Therefor, if you wish to live, the sun is valuable to you.

You may or may not want to live, that is subjective. You can not live without the sun, that is not subjective.

The absence of the word intrinsic from your post here is interesting. Was that intentional?

Do you continue to believe that the sun, as a consequence of being required for human life, possesses intrinsic value?

A property of human life is that it requires the sun. This is a property of human life, not a property of the sun.

If the subjective theory of value is valid, then there cannot be anything which possesses non-subjective value. Value requires an observer. In the absence of any observers, there's no value.

The sun has intrinsic value to those humans who wish to continue living.

In order for something to have intrinsic value, a relationship must exist. A can not have intrinsic value alone, the intrinsic value must come from B.

Can you explain the difference between the following two statements?

The sun has intrinsic value to those humans who wish to continue living.

The sun has value to those humans who wish to continue living.

[frozen]

By "us" I mean people who want to continue living, obviously...

The point is, without the sun, no one lives, regardless of what they want. It doesn't really matter how much you value the sun, without it you cease to exist (until we find ways around this problem). Therefor, if you wish to live, the sun is valuable to you.

You may or may not want to live, that is subjective. You can not live without the sun, that is not subjective.

The absence of the word intrinsic from your post here is interesting. Was that intentional?

Do you continue to believe that the sun, as a consequence of being required for human life, possesses intrinsic value?

A property of human life is that it requires the sun. This is a property of human life, not a property of the sun.

If the subjective theory of value is valid, then there cannot be anything which possesses non-subjective value. Value requires an observer. In the absence of any observers, there's no value.

The sun has intrinsic value to those humans who wish to continue living.

In order for something to have intrinsic value, a relationship must exist. A can not have intrinsic value alone, the intrinsic value must come from B.

Can you explain the difference between the following two statements?

The sun has intrinsic value to those humans who wish to continue living.

The sun has value to those humans who wish to continue living.

The first one is more accurate because it is providing additional factual information.

What factual information does the first sentence provide that is not conveyed by the second sentence?

[frozen]

By "us" I mean people who want to continue living, obviously...

The point is, without the sun, no one lives, regardless of what they want. It doesn't really matter how much you value the sun, without it you cease to exist (until we find ways around this problem). Therefor, if you wish to live, the sun is valuable to you.

You may or may not want to live, that is subjective. You can not live without the sun, that is not subjective.

The absence of the word intrinsic from your post here is interesting. Was that intentional?

Do you continue to believe that the sun, as a consequence of being required for human life, possesses intrinsic value?

A property of human life is that it requires the sun. This is a property of human life, not a property of the sun.

If the subjective theory of value is valid, then there cannot be anything which possesses non-subjective value. Value requires an observer. In the absence of any observers, there's no value.

The sun has intrinsic value to those humans who wish to continue living.

In order for something to have intrinsic value, a relationship must exist. A can not have intrinsic value alone, the intrinsic value must come from B.

Can you explain the difference between the following two statements?

The sun has intrinsic value to those humans who wish to continue living.

The sun has value to those humans who wish to continue living.

The first one is more accurate because it is providing additional factual information.

What factual information does the first sentence provide that is not conveyed by the second sentence?

The type of value.

So it conveys that the type of value is intrinsic. That is tautological.

You haven't explained what additional factual information is being provided by the first sentence that makes it more accurate than the second one.

The sun has nog d'fubared value to those humans who wish to continue living.

The sentence above conveys even more factual information that the first sentence. What factual formation? The type of value! Nog d'fubared value > intrinsic value, self-evidently.

[frozen]

So it conveys that the type of value is intrinsic. That is tautological.

You haven't explained what additional factual information is being provided by the first sentence that makes it more accurate than the second one.

The sun has nog d'fubared value to those humans who wish to continue living.

The sentence above conveys even more factual information that the first sentence. What factual formation? The type of value! Nog d'fubared value > intrinsic value, self-evidently.

Intrinsic does not have the same definition as value, so I don't see a tautology. Intrinsic is a word with it's own specific meaning. When it is placed in front of the word value, it describes what type of value we are talking about, thus giving the sentence additional meaning that the word value alone can not convey.

We could be talking about objective value, subjective value, intrinsic value, et cetera.  

You are suggesting that the word intrinsic modifies the world value in such a way to render the first sentence more accurate (than the second sentence) as it provides additional factual information. Exactly what that factual information is you have yet to disclose. What you have said is that it provides "the type of value." My example also provides the "type of value," which is "nog d'fubared." There's no information being conveyed here that isn't evident from the syntax of the language. Words can modify other words, I understand this. I'm not concerned about the factual information contained within the medium of the message (syntax) but rather contained within the content of the message.

Back to the original two sentences:

1. The sun has intrinsic value to those humans who wish to continue living.

2. The sun has value to those humans who wish to continue living.

intrinsic must have a definition. Therefore, we can replace this word with its definition, and the sentence will continue to have the same meaning.

Can you share with me what this sentence would look like?