The Fallacy of "Intrinsic Value"

[pening]

In the end, objects are only as valuable as they are useful.  Gold is useful for lots of things because it has qualities that fill the needs of lots of different intrinsic concepts.  That doesn't mean gold itself is intrinsically valuable.  

Actually, yes it does.  Not seen someone use so many words to come to a conclusion that argues against their own point and even spell out the contradiction at the end.   Well done, i think.

[1715375026]

1715375026

[1715375026]

1715375026

[1715375026]

1715375026

[1715375026]

1715375026

[1715375026]

1715375026

[1715375026]

1715375026

[AlexGR]

I don't see why you would classify gold as money because of this.  The 5B Euros is the money part not the gold

I don't classify it as money. My central bank does that with its monetary gold.

Btw, the concept that something is as valuable as people are willing to pay for it, is semi-valid, because there's also a production cost which is real and thus rolls over to the value of the produced product/mined mineral etc. A rock may be useless intrinsically but if I traveled to the moon to get it (tremendous expenses to bring it back) the rock itself becomes quite "valuable" for some people who appreciated the effort and money spent and bought it from me with a premium.

[trazmoflex]

You're not addressing the core definition of the term "intrinsic value", which refers to its utility in itself as something OTHER than a medium of exchange. Gold use very useful for making jewelry, coating wires, and dozens of other applications in various industries. THESE are the things that give it its intrinsic value, and they are the only things. Being an effective medium of exchange does not give something intrinsic value.

Right on

[Richy_T]

Zombie thread resurrection...

I think the issue here is that the economics world uses the word "intrinsic" in a way that is different than it's more general definition.

And then proceeds to treat it as if it meant exactly the same.

Which leads to all sorts of fun conclusions and outcomes.

Abraham Lincoln is purported to have asked "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?".

An economist would take a dog valued at $100, claim that was $25 per leg, define the tail as a leg and then claim to have increased the value of the dog by 25%.