Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it

[johnyj]

Money isnt really a imaginary concept.

If it wasnt for a fiat system in place, what you expect people to barter and be okay with it? The only reason why the system is in place is to avoid the nonsense of bartering, but it just happens that the banks also have the ability to cash out as well since they offered it.

It is imaginary, first comes the concept, then the realization in the physical world. The concept of ideal money is: There is something special that is accepted by EVERYONE in commercial activities and have relatively stable purchasing power over a period of time. As long as these 2 conditions can be met, it is money

So, first came cows and wheat, which was needed by almost everyone when food supply was still not sufficient. Then came gold. The strange thing is that gold is not needed by everyone but still became money thousands of years ago. I think this has something to do with Sovereign power. In old Egypt, wheat is the money, while gold were largely used for decoration. If many people don't feel gold is any more meaningful than some shinny stones they occasionally find in the rocks, then the gold usage as money is very likely to be a decision from the top

[1714512036]

1714512036

[1714512036]

1714512036

[deisik]

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the assumption that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for (or, rather, into) things that can be bought with it...

That's a good question

The diminishing marginal utility still applies to fiat money, but because fiat money have universal acceptance (In fact only domestically), can buy you anything, then the diminishing marginal utility will apply to all the things combined together, thus very difficult to observe for average household. You need much larger amount to see the effect

Imagine that you have 100 trillion dollar, adding another 100 trillion dollar is almost useless to you, because it does not buy you any more things than 100 trillion dollar can do. In fact for 50 trillion dollars you might already run out of the things that you can buy in the whole world (Many things are not for sale), this is the problem that central banks are facing right now

You could just say that the money has no value by itself, and the money an individual has represents the amount of goods that he can have. Thereby you can exclude money out of the equation completely and would lose almost nothing from the picture. If we consider value as utility, then money has some utility to us by and of itself, since it gives us the possibility to choose what to buy (and what not) as well as postpone buying altogether. Whether this utility abides by the law of diminishing marginal utility (i.e. diminishes with the amount of money an individual has) remains to be seen...

Personally, I don't think that it does, therefore there is room for doubt about the nature of this utility

[Erdogan]

There is a common misconception that money is not value, because it can not be eaten etc. But, all value is one individual's preference for one thing over another, which includes money. Therefore, money is value just like other things.

I agree that value is subjective, means utility and can be compared on the basis of an individual's preference of one thing over another. But I don't agree that money can be judged that simple. One of the fundamentals of the subjective value theory that you make reference to here is the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Money apparently doesn't conform to this notion, which can be explained only by the assumption that money doesn't possess value per se. It is just an intermediary for (or, rather, into) things that can be bought with it...

That's a good question

The diminishing marginal utility still applies to fiat money, but because fiat money have universal acceptance (In fact only domestically), can buy you anything, then the diminishing marginal utility will apply to all the things combined together, thus very difficult to observe for average household. You need much larger amount to see the effect

Imagine that you have 100 trillion dollar, adding another 100 trillion dollar is almost useless to you, because it does not buy you any more things than 100 trillion dollar can do. In fact for 50 trillion dollars you might already run out of the things that you can buy in the whole world (Many things are not for sale), this is the problem that central banks are facing right now

You could just say that the money has no value by itself, and the money an individual has represents the amount of goods that he can have. Thereby you can exclude money out of the equation completely and would lose almost nothing from the picture. If we consider value as utility, then money has some utility to us by and of itself, since it gives us the possibility to choose what to buy (and what not) as well as postpone buying altogether. Whether this utility abides by the law of diminishing marginal utility (i.e. diminishes with the amount of money an individual has) remains to be seen...

Personally, I don't think that it does, therefore there is room for doubt about the nature of this utility

Red: But you can't say that.  Money does not represent some or any amount of goods. When you have money, you and the one you want to trade with, still have to consider the preference of money over the goods. There is no requiring of goods for money, it is all speculation of what you will be able to trade them for. There is no such thing as going into a shop and just buy, either you accept the shop owners offer, or you make an offer that he might accept. This point is crucial and makes money different from debt, or the debt-based gift economy.

[johnyj]

You could just say that the money has no value by itself, and the money an individual has represents the amount of goods that he can have. Thereby you can exclude money out of the equation completely and would lose almost nothing from the picture. If we consider value as utility, then money has some utility to us by and of itself, since it gives us the possibility to choose what to buy (and what not) as well as postpone buying altogether. Whether this utility abides by the law of diminishing marginal utility (i.e. diminishes with the amount of money an individual has) remains to be seen...

Personally, I don't think that it does, therefore there is room for doubt about the nature of this utility

I think it does, but since money can purchase almost everything, and human's demand are so many, you are actually asking wether diminishing marginal utility applies to all the human's demand added together. That is much more complicated than asking the same question for a single utility like bread or milk

In fact, even with 100 utilities, you might run into a problem that the demand appears to be unlimited due to you have less time to consume: Even if you spend all day playing games and watching new movies, you might end up with missing out more and more games and films, not because you don't like them, just because you don't have time (And generally economy theories are not working any more in an environment that has abundant supply)


And you can not exclude the money out of the equation. Without money, you will lose the means to access any other utilities. This transaction demand is also what gives fiat money value, and it enabled most of the commercial activities

Without merchant acceptance, the money is like you described, has no value, but the universal acceptance itself, although does not generate any utility, injected value for currency temporarily until the next trade happens

A good example: In 2009 North Korean suddenly announced that the old currency will not be allowed in circulation, thus anyone holding the old currency immediately lost most of the purchasing power of those currency. The value of those currency suddenly disappeared because the acceptance is removed nation wide

One bitcoin private key without blockchain is totally useless, but once it is in the network, can be transferred between people, some people will start to accept it as a payment method, then it start to have its monetary value. Similarly, fiat money without merchant acceptance is also useless

[Gyfts]

It's interesting you compare money to a supply and demand situation. The demand for money and the supply for money is both infinite. Money is like a scalar quantity. It's always constant. It's used by us humans to put a value on a product or service. It's the root of any economy. For a supply and demand to exist, you need to have money to drive it. I agree that it's an imaginary concept, but it's something that we are so dependent on because it puts a crystallized value on something.

[techgeek]

It's interesting you compare money to a supply and demand situation. The demand for money and the supply for money is both infinite. Money is like a scalar quantity. It's always constant. It's used by us humans to put a value on a product or service. It's the root of any economy. For a supply and demand to exist, you need to have money to drive it. I agree that it's an imaginary concept, but it's something that we are so dependent on because it puts a crystallized value on something.

Well what else are we going to use? I mean, theoretically if the money wasnt there, I really see no replacement.

The dollar and the fiat system has been here for longer then anyone can think of. It actually roots back way 1000 AD. I know for fact though bitcoin wont replace the current system, but it`ll be used for something else.

[deisik]

Red: But you can't say that.  Money does not represent some or any amount of goods. When you have money, you and the one you want to trade with, still have to consider the preference of money over the goods. There is no requiring of goods for money, it is all speculation of what you will be able to trade them for. There is no such thing as going into a shop and just buy, either you accept the shop owners offer, or you make an offer that he might accept. This point is crucial and makes money different from debt, or the debt-based gift economy.

Before we continue, I think, you should substantiate your previous claim about how I misunderstood the word "intrinsic" in respect to money. It is not something that you could say and get away with, so you'd better first take responsibility for your words...

And I still don't understand what you mean

[deisik]

You could just say that the money has no value by itself, and the money an individual has represents the amount of goods that he can have. Thereby you can exclude money out of the equation completely and would lose almost nothing from the picture. If we consider value as utility, then money has some utility to us by and of itself, since it gives us the possibility to choose what to buy (and what not) as well as postpone buying altogether. Whether this utility abides by the law of diminishing marginal utility (i.e. diminishes with the amount of money an individual has) remains to be seen...

Personally, I don't think that it does, therefore there is room for doubt about the nature of this utility

I think it does, but since money can purchase almost everything, and human's demand are so many, you are actually asking wether diminishing marginal utility applies to all the human's demand added together. That is much more complicated than asking the same question for a single utility like bread or milk

You didn't understand my point. I am not talking about people's unlimited demands or their needs. I mean the utility of money over barter (i.e. not the utility of things that can be bought with money). With barter you don't have as many options as with money. What you have for exchange may quickly deteriorate, other people may not be interested in that, you can't postpone consumption, and so on...

In this way money is not an abstract imaginary concept in the sense it is meant in this topic

[Erdogan]

Red: But you can't say that.  Money does not represent some or any amount of goods. When you have money, you and the one you want to trade with, still have to consider the preference of money over the goods. There is no requiring of goods for money, it is all speculation of what you will be able to trade them for. There is no such thing as going into a shop and just buy, either you accept the shop owners offer, or you make an offer that he might accept. This point is crucial and makes money different from debt, or the debt-based gift economy.

Before we continue, I think, you should substantiate your previous claim about how I misunderstood the word "intrinsic" in respect to money. It is not something that you could say and get away with, so you'd better first take responsibility for your words...

And I still don't understand what you mean

Intrinsic, by and in itself, with regard to money, is the direct use value. If you can eat it, for example it has intrinsic value. Gold has some intrinsic value, since it can be used in electronics and for pretty things (the use for pretty things can be somewhat foggy, because the reason for carrying a gold bracelet may not only be for decoration, but also for the money reserve).

The exchange value is value not for the owner directly, but because someone else may demand it, again not for the direct use, but for someone else again ... ad infinitum. It is the exchange value, or money value, or speculative value (because you have it now, and you speculate that others will demand it later).

Pure value is things that have only money value, it is hard to find between common things, fiat money comes close, bitcoin even closer.

So the money does not represent useful goods in the world, or represent value, it is value, not something exact, but dependent on the demand for the money in the market. Demand, again, has it's roots in needs and wants, but comes into existence when someone acts by offering something for the money (or accepts a money offer for something else (including another type of money)).

 

[deisik]

Red: But you can't say that.  Money does not represent some or any amount of goods. When you have money, you and the one you want to trade with, still have to consider the preference of money over the goods. There is no requiring of goods for money, it is all speculation of what you will be able to trade them for. There is no such thing as going into a shop and just buy, either you accept the shop owners offer, or you make an offer that he might accept. This point is crucial and makes money different from debt, or the debt-based gift economy.

Before we continue, I think, you should substantiate your previous claim about how I misunderstood the word "intrinsic" in respect to money. It is not something that you could say and get away with, so you'd better first take responsibility for your words...

And I still don't understand what you mean

Intrinsic, by and in itself, with regard to money, is the direct use value. If you can eat it, for example it has intrinsic value. Gold has some intrinsic value, since it can be used in electronics and for pretty things (the use for pretty things can be somewhat foggy, because the reason for carrying a gold bracelet may not only be for decoration, but also for the money reserve).

You still didn't say how I misunderstood the word, you're just saying how you understand it. You see it is always risky to say things like that, since you may be asked to explain how I (or anyone else for that matter) understood it (even incorrectly), that is, explain my point. I'm all ears, go ahead...

[Erdogan]

Red: But you can't say that.  Money does not represent some or any amount of goods. When you have money, you and the one you want to trade with, still have to consider the preference of money over the goods. There is no requiring of goods for money, it is all speculation of what you will be able to trade them for. There is no such thing as going into a shop and just buy, either you accept the shop owners offer, or you make an offer that he might accept. This point is crucial and makes money different from debt, or the debt-based gift economy.

Before we continue, I think, you should substantiate your previous claim about how I misunderstood the word "intrinsic" in respect to money. It is not something that you could say and get away with, so you'd better first take responsibility for your words...

And I still don't understand what you mean

Intrinsic, by and in itself, with regard to money, is the direct use value. If you can eat it, for example it has intrinsic value. Gold has some intrinsic value, since it can be used in electronics and for pretty things (the use for pretty things can be somewhat foggy, because the reason for carrying a gold bracelet may not only be for decoration, but also for the money reserve).

You still didn't say how I misunderstood the word, you're just saying how you understand it. You see it is always risky to say things like that, since you may be asked to explain how I (or anyone else for that matter) understood it (even incorrectly), that is, explain my point. I'm all ears, go ahead...

Looking back, it seems you used the word "value as such", not intrinsic, but I read it as the same concept.

You want to discuss diminishing marginal utility, which is okay. It is a stretch to use that meme in regard to money, since they have no direct utility, but I guess you could apply it to value itself if it is large enough, except it does not seem to work that way in practice. The very rich seem to be just as eager to keep and expand their wealth as a poor one. Anyway it does not touch the problem of money value being real, or representing what you migh get for the money. Ah...It seems this was your point. Ok I get it. Money value does not seem to diminish, therefore there is a fundamental difference. I am ok with that, except that the money value is not therefore in any way unreal, or representing something else. The difference is just the exchange value contra the direct use value, general value contra the more specific. Maybe we are mostly in agreement.

Hitherto I have considered the diminishing marginal utility as a different, not uninteresting but rather obvious, concept. The same with the subjective contra objective value discussions that comes up from time to time.

Edit:
Rethinking the diminishing marginal utility, for these examples to work, maybe it should be renamed to diminishing marginal value...:

Someone could think that

I have enough money, therefore I don't need to work overtime.

I reduce my work ours, because I prefer more of my own time to money.

I could get by without a new car, but I have enough money, so why not.


The example with the very rich, could be regarded as an obsession, or a delution (they think they are not economically safe, but they really are), or as a competition, to be richer than most everyone, just like a guy who collects beer bottle capsules. The only way to get in the paper is to be the one who have most, meaning the next capsule is worth more than each previous.

End rant... it can be said that money value also diminishes when you have more.

[deisik]

Red: But you can't say that.  Money does not represent some or any amount of goods. When you have money, you and the one you want to trade with, still have to consider the preference of money over the goods. There is no requiring of goods for money, it is all speculation of what you will be able to trade them for. There is no such thing as going into a shop and just buy, either you accept the shop owners offer, or you make an offer that he might accept. This point is crucial and makes money different from debt, or the debt-based gift economy.

Before we continue, I think, you should substantiate your previous claim about how I misunderstood the word "intrinsic" in respect to money. It is not something that you could say and get away with, so you'd better first take responsibility for your words...

And I still don't understand what you mean

Intrinsic, by and in itself, with regard to money, is the direct use value. If you can eat it, for example it has intrinsic value. Gold has some intrinsic value, since it can be used in electronics and for pretty things (the use for pretty things can be somewhat foggy, because the reason for carrying a gold bracelet may not only be for decoration, but also for the money reserve).

You still didn't say how I misunderstood the word, you're just saying how you understand it. You see it is always risky to say things like that, since you may be asked to explain how I (or anyone else for that matter) understood it (even incorrectly), that is, explain my point. I'm all ears, go ahead...

Looking back, it seems you used the word "value as such", not intrinsic, but I read it as the same concept.

As you should have known by now (since we had discussed similar issues previously), I maintain the idea that nothing has intrinsic value, all value being subjective. That's why I double-quoted the word. And yes, I meant just that, "direct use value" in your speak, something that you can eat, figuratively speaking in respect to money indeed (the utility of money per se I explained before). Regarding your "exchange value" (it seems that now I get what you mean), you describe not value but the universal machinery which makes exchange possible ("an individual's preference for one thing over another"), irrespective of money. If money didn't represent things which can be bought with it, the exchange with money as an intermediary wouldn't be possible. In fact, the very concept of money wouldn't be possible if things didn't have what you call "exchange value", since there would be no exchange in the first place (even without money). Money just represents this "exchange value" of things. This is being proven by the fact that any exchange through money (goods-money-goods) can be done directly, i.e. without money (goods-goods), therefore the value of money is not in the exchange itself...

[deisik]

You want to discuss diminishing marginal utility, which is okay. It is a stretch to use that meme in regard to money, since they have [it has] no direct utility, but I guess you could apply it to value itself if it is large enough, except it does not seem to work that way in practice. The very rich seem to be just as eager to keep and expand their wealth as a poor one. Anyway it does not touch the problem of money value being real, or representing what you migh get for the money. Ah...It seems this was your point. Ok I get it. Money value does not seem to diminish, therefore there is a fundamental difference. I am ok with that, except that the money value is not therefore in any way unreal, or representing something else. The difference is just the exchange value contra the direct use value, general value contra the more specific. Maybe we are mostly in agreement.

Money has "direct" utility (note that I am double-quoting the word direct, since it makes no sense), which I explained earlier. And exactly towards this utility I was suggesting to apply the law of diminishing marginal utility. As i said, I don't think that the utility of money ("direct use value") abides by this law, but I haven't given this idea much thought myself. In fact, I was hoping that someone would pick it up and give us a proof (or a rebuttal) that I would just agree with...

I'm using your terminology but it is superfluous and only further confuses things ("direct use value", "exchange value", and possible meanings of the word value)

[Erdogan]

Red: But you can't say that.  Money does not represent some or any amount of goods. When you have money, you and the one you want to trade with, still have to consider the preference of money over the goods. There is no requiring of goods for money, it is all speculation of what you will be able to trade them for. There is no such thing as going into a shop and just buy, either you accept the shop owners offer, or you make an offer that he might accept. This point is crucial and makes money different from debt, or the debt-based gift economy.

Before we continue, I think, you should substantiate your previous claim about how I misunderstood the word "intrinsic" in respect to money. It is not something that you could say and get away with, so you'd better first take responsibility for your words...

And I still don't understand what you mean

Intrinsic, by and in itself, with regard to money, is the direct use value. If you can eat it, for example it has intrinsic value. Gold has some intrinsic value, since it can be used in electronics and for pretty things (the use for pretty things can be somewhat foggy, because the reason for carrying a gold bracelet may not only be for decoration, but also for the money reserve).

You still didn't say how I misunderstood the word, you're just saying how you understand it. You see it is always risky to say things like that, since you may be asked to explain how I (or anyone else for that matter) understood it (even incorrectly), that is, explain my point. I'm all ears, go ahead...

Looking back, it seems you used the word "value as such", not intrinsic, but I read it as the same concept.

As you should have known by now (since we had discussed similar issues previously), I maintain the idea that nothing has intrinsic value, all value being subjective. That's why I double-quoted the word. And yes, I meant just that, "direct use value" in your speak, something that you can eat, figuratively speaking in respect to money indeed (the utility of money per se I explained before). Regarding your "exchange value" (it seems that now I get what you mean), you describe not value but the universal machinery which makes exchange possible ("an individual's preference for one thing over another"), irrespective of money. If money didn't represent things which can be bought with it, the exchange with money as an intermediary wouldn't be possible. In fact, the very concept of money wouldn't be possible if things didn't have what you call "exchange value", since there would be no exchange in the first place. Money just represents this "exchange value" of things. This is being proven by the fact that any exchange through money (goods-money-goods) can be done directly, i.e. without money (goods-goods), therefore the value of money is not in the exchange itself...

Here we go again. You may be correct, but using inaccurate, random definitions. How is it possible to regard intrinsic as contrary to subjective?

[deisik]

As you should have known by now (since we had discussed similar issues previously), I maintain the idea that nothing has intrinsic value, all value being subjective. That's why I double-quoted the word. And yes, I meant just that, "direct use value" in your speak, something that you can eat, figuratively speaking in respect to money indeed (the utility of money per se I explained before). Regarding your "exchange value" (it seems that now I get what you mean), you describe not value but the universal machinery which makes exchange possible ("an individual's preference for one thing over another"), irrespective of money. If money didn't represent things which can be bought with it, the exchange with money as an intermediary wouldn't be possible. In fact, the very concept of money wouldn't be possible if things didn't have what you call "exchange value", since there would be no exchange in the first place. Money just represents this "exchange value" of things. This is being proven by the fact that any exchange through money (goods-money-goods) can be done directly, i.e. without money (goods-goods), therefore the value of money is not in the exchange itself...

Here we go again. You may be correct, but using inaccurate, random definitions. How is it possible to regard intrinsic as contrary to subjective?

Why should I repeat it again that there is no such word (intrinsic) in my understanding? I don't consider intrinsic as contrary to subjective, I am just saying that this word makes no sense since all value is subjective. I'm using your words as you mean them (intrinsic as in "something you can eat"), though I specifically double-quote them. But you then blame me that they are "inaccurate, random definitions". They are your definitions, not mine...

Personally, I wouldn't use the word value at all (since it has very vague meaning). There is already precise term, i.e. utility

[Erdogan]

You want to discuss diminishing marginal utility, which is okay. It is a stretch to use that meme in regard to money, since they have [it has] no direct utility, but I guess you could apply it to value itself if it is large enough, except it does not seem to work that way in practice. The very rich seem to be just as eager to keep and expand their wealth as a poor one. Anyway it does not touch the problem of money value being real, or representing what you migh get for the money. Ah...It seems this was your point. Ok I get it. Money value does not seem to diminish, therefore there is a fundamental difference. I am ok with that, except that the money value is not therefore in any way unreal, or representing something else. The difference is just the exchange value contra the direct use value, general value contra the more specific. Maybe we are mostly in agreement.

Money has "direct" utility (note that I am double-quoting the word direct, since it makes no sense), which I explained earlier. And exactly towards this utility I was suggesting to apply the law of diminishing marginal utility. As i said, I don't think that the utility of money ("direct use value") abides by this law, but I haven't given this idea much thought myself. In fact, I was hoping that someone would pick it up and give us a proof (or a rebuttal) that I would just agree with...

I'm using your terminology but it is superfluous and only further confuses things ("direct use value", "exchange value", and the like)

Here we go again. How can it be possible for money to have direct utility, when you have in detail described what direct utility is ("something that you can eat, figuratively speaking"). How can direct not be a useful word. Either you can utilize the money directly, or you have to make a trade before you can utilize the value? The trade is the limit between the direct and indirect utility.  Indirect utility -> trade -> direct utility. You transform the indirect value of the money to something useful using a trade.

[Kluge]

By this interpretation (which I don't disagree with), cash is effectively representative money with the caveat that cash is not guaranteed to be redeemable for any arbitrary amount, instead relying on market functions. Cash itself is worthless, but it represents X units of "anything and everything" (at least within the issuing country, dependent on their legal tender laws, if any!). Since "whatever we want" is basically the most maximally valuable commodity in the Universe, cash is maximally valuable to everyone (unlike, say, camels or silver nuggets), but only while it represents "whatever we want."

The real issue with the traditional definition of representative currency is that it MUST be legal tender for it to be maximally valuable -- I really don't give half a shit about being able to redeem it for a silver nugget because
1) I have no direct use for silver nuggets and don't want the clutter (there's no single item on Earth I want in such quantity that I'd want to be able to spend my net worth on owning... except maybe Tesla Powerwalls - those things are fucking amazing).
2) in the event of some monetary disaster where I'd actually consider redeeming cash for nuggets, I presume the chance of the nuggets actually being there is very low.

Combined, this makes representative currency (by traditional definition) a giant waste of resources. If the best use we can find for gold, silver, rhodium, and whatever is storing them in a warehouse, aliens should kill us all right now. Similarly, using useful items as a medium of exchange is terrible. -So we use relatively useless items. Cash is fantastic with regards to work efficiency because the paper, fabrics, and polymers we use to make fiat in the world has negligible value (not completely the case with all the semi-effective anti-counterfeiting shit built in these days, but the value's still very low). Who really gives a shit if a bank is storing $10,000,000,000 in nominal value using $291.50 in actual material costs (the actual cost of manufacturing the bills) -- I mean, that's pretty cool that we've been able to add what we were using as money back into the productive economy - but it left us open to policy abuse by the issuers, which turned out to be governments (which is probably far better than banks, at least), so I see bitcoin as the final evolution here and putting the final nail in the coffin of using otherwise-useful resources as something to keep in your pocket or a warehouse. "Redeemable" (if you trust the issuer... a LOT) crypto put a bit of a twist on that, but I don't honestly believe it has any place in the mainstream.

The problem is not about the cost, it is about the arbitraging behavior related to the money. This has already been observed on many alt-coins, especially POS coins

If a money unit cost $291.5 to make, but command a market price at 10 billion dollars, thus become a presentation of value, then what will happen? Everyone will try to produce this money and use its market value to purchase other things, because they can make a quick profit right away. This will raise the competition in money creation and raise its cost, at mean time anyone accepting this money will only be willing to exchange similar value of $291.5, no more

People will be forced to accept a market price of $10B if they are not allowed to produce this money, that's how fiat works today. And that's the reason it is called monopole money: Only banks allowed to make money at a cost of $291.5 and spend it like 10 billion. But for a money that everyone can make like bitcoin, its production cost will always be close to its market value, due to arbitraging

Agreed. I should've phrased that better. One of the coolest features of Bitcoin is that it can always be produced, but the amount of effort put into minting scaled up with price and we had a very low price for a long time In The Beginning - so most of our coins were mined for very little effort (relative to today's amount of work required). Well over half of the bitcoins are already staked, so we get the same arbitrage effect you describe without having had to pour many, many more $millions (billions?) into minting these coins as we would have if we started mining at the current difficulty.

[deisik]

You want to discuss diminishing marginal utility, which is okay. It is a stretch to use that meme in regard to money, since they have [it has] no direct utility, but I guess you could apply it to value itself if it is large enough, except it does not seem to work that way in practice. The very rich seem to be just as eager to keep and expand their wealth as a poor one. Anyway it does not touch the problem of money value being real, or representing what you migh get for the money. Ah...It seems this was your point. Ok I get it. Money value does not seem to diminish, therefore there is a fundamental difference. I am ok with that, except that the money value is not therefore in any way unreal, or representing something else. The difference is just the exchange value contra the direct use value, general value contra the more specific. Maybe we are mostly in agreement.

Money has "direct" utility (note that I am double-quoting the word direct, since it makes no sense), which I explained earlier. And exactly towards this utility I was suggesting to apply the law of diminishing marginal utility. As i said, I don't think that the utility of money ("direct use value") abides by this law, but I haven't given this idea much thought myself. In fact, I was hoping that someone would pick it up and give us a proof (or a rebuttal) that I would just agree with...

I'm using your terminology but it is superfluous and only further confuses things ("direct use value", "exchange value", and the like)

Here we go again. How can it be possible for money to have direct utility, when you have in detail described what direct utility is ("something that you can eat, figuratively speaking"). How can direct not be a useful word. Either you can utilize the money directly, or you have to make a trade before you can utilize the value? The trade is the limit between the direct and indirect utility.  Indirect utility -> trade -> direct utility. You transform the indirect value of the money to something useful using a trade.

Once again, there is no direct or indirect value, no direct or indirect utility. All utility is "direct" by definition, and money has such, though not in exchange where it just represents value (utility) of things that can be bought with it. These are the words that you use, not me. I just repeat them after you in an effort to explain things in your terms, and then you are trying to blame me for using them. Obviously, you are blaming the wrong person. Why are you so eagerly trying to obfuscate matters?

[Erdogan]

As you should have known by now (since we had discussed similar issues previously), I maintain the idea that nothing has intrinsic value, all value being subjective. That's why I double-quoted the word. And yes, I meant just that, "direct use value" in your speak, something that you can eat, figuratively speaking in respect to money indeed (the utility of money per se I explained before). Regarding your "exchange value" (it seems that now I get what you mean), you describe not value but the universal machinery which makes exchange possible ("an individual's preference for one thing over another"), irrespective of money. If money didn't represent things which can be bought with it, the exchange with money as an intermediary wouldn't be possible. In fact, the very concept of money wouldn't be possible if things didn't have what you call "exchange value", since there would be no exchange in the first place. Money just represents this "exchange value" of things. This is being proven by the fact that any exchange through money (goods-money-goods) can be done directly, i.e. without money (goods-goods), therefore the value of money is not in the exchange itself...

Here we go again. You may be correct, but using inaccurate, random definitions. How is it possible to regard intrinsic as contrary to subjective?

Why should I repeat it again that there is no such word (intrinsic) in my understanding? I don't consider intrinsic as contrary to subjective, I am just saying that this word makes no sense since all value is subjective. I'm using your words as you mean them (intrinsic as in "something you can eat", though I specifically double-quote them), but you then blame me that they are "inaccurate, random definitions". They are your definitions, not mine...

Is there not a concept "value for direct use" either, in your understanding? It is basically the same, but intrinsic "in itself" captures it better and is the word generally used for the concept in the literature. Objective, on the other hand, which no value is (consistent with value being subjective, an antonym to subjective), means that the value is disconnected from the person valuing it.

So a thing is valueable, not objectively, because the person valuing it is not an uninterested bystander, it is not other persons who value it, but the subject, the person making the choice. At the same time it is valueable by and in itself, because it is traits with the thing itself, its calory content, it's taste, it's color, it's structure and so on that the subject takes into account while evaluating. Money, being green sometimes, it does not matter, it is not those intrinsic traits that give it value. Only the speculation that others will prefer it in some future trade.

I probably waste my time with this.

[deisik]

As you should have known by now (since we had discussed similar issues previously), I maintain the idea that nothing has intrinsic value, all value being subjective. That's why I double-quoted the word. And yes, I meant just that, "direct use value" in your speak, something that you can eat, figuratively speaking in respect to money indeed (the utility of money per se I explained before). Regarding your "exchange value" (it seems that now I get what you mean), you describe not value but the universal machinery which makes exchange possible ("an individual's preference for one thing over another"), irrespective of money. If money didn't represent things which can be bought with it, the exchange with money as an intermediary wouldn't be possible. In fact, the very concept of money wouldn't be possible if things didn't have what you call "exchange value", since there would be no exchange in the first place. Money just represents this "exchange value" of things. This is being proven by the fact that any exchange through money (goods-money-goods) can be done directly, i.e. without money (goods-goods), therefore the value of money is not in the exchange itself...

Here we go again. You may be correct, but using inaccurate, random definitions. How is it possible to regard intrinsic as contrary to subjective?

Why should I repeat it again that there is no such word (intrinsic) in my understanding? I don't consider intrinsic as contrary to subjective, I am just saying that this word makes no sense since all value is subjective. I'm using your words as you mean them (intrinsic as in "something you can eat", though I specifically double-quote them), but you then blame me that they are "inaccurate, random definitions". They are your definitions, not mine...

Is there not a concept "value for direct use" either, in your understanding? It is basically the same, but intrinsic "in itself" captures it better and is the word generally used for the concept in the literature. Objective, on the other hand, which no value is (consistent with value being subjective, an antonym to subjective), means that the value is disconnected from the person valuing it.

As I said, all value is subjective. To me, there is no difference between "value for direct use" or "value for indirect use", it is all the same subjectively. These terms only confuse things and are a cause of futile debates, which this argument obviously confirms. Anything can be of utility to an individual, or not. If it is, then it can be of less utility than something else, or of more. The difference in utility (strictly speaking, in marginal utility) is the basis for exchange, without it no exchange between people would be possible at all (with or without money)...

Such objective qualities as caloric content, taste, color and whatnot are no concern of economics unless they serve as a basis for subjective valuation by a person making choice