> Your definition of “intrinsic value” does not match that of standard economic terminology.
I am well aware of that—because using standard economic terminology in this case, that of ascribing the property of intrinsic value to gold, is dead wrong. It’s both a misuse of language and a confusion of terms. Value is a thing agents ascribe to objects; in economic theory, it is a measured result of social relations. It is not a property of the objects themselves. The physical properties of gold are intrinsic to gold itself. The use and exchange value is created by humanity.
If everyone decides gold has no value tomorrow, it has no value. There’s nothing intrinsic about it.
> Gold has intrinsic value beyond speculation because it can be used for industrial supplies and because it’s a well-liked jewelry item. Extrinsic value contributed by speculation can drive this price away from those anchors, but the anchors exist.
You are describing use values, and each of them are further describing exactly my point. The intrinsic physical properties of gold are found to have use value by acting agents. The value found, discovered, or created on the basis of an object’s properties is not intrinsic to the object itself. It comes from outside.
> Your definition seems vaguely philosophical, but in any case your argument, as posed, is incoherent. Either you’re using the same definition as what others are, in which case your argument is simply incorrect, or you’re using an alternate definition, and your argument ceases to be relevant.
I find the argument that use and exchange values are intrinsic to any object to be far more incoherent. All of economics is rooted in philosophical positions on value, markets, commodities, exchange, and so on. The notion that value is intrinsic to an object is one of the most incoherent foundations to most people’s understanding of economics and value. I am using the same definition—but directly disputing its coherence. It’s fine if we can’t agree that the notion of intrinsic value is a confusion of terms itself, but that doesn’t render incoherent those who point this out.
This whole “gold has intrinsic value” notion is, in my opinion, a sad confusion of the intrinsic theory of value as it has over time trickled into common parlance. When most people go about saying, “Gold has the nifty property of intrinsic value”, that statement far too often suggests or implies value as a property, rather than a measured result (of socioeconomic activity among actors in a market).
The economic value of a commodity is both use and exchange values. You’re talking of use values here. They are included when talking of the value of an object.
You’re also, like other commenters, unnecessarily stuck on the example of gold. See past that. Gold is no different from any other object—anything can lose its value, because that value is the product of human activity, ideas, and relations in a market. When I say If everyone decides gold has no value tomorrow, it has no value, I was talking all value. Your scheme won’t work when everyone decides gold has no value, because gold is nothing more than an object in the market whose value is constructed by human relations and activity.
You are overestimating the value of gold as a utility.
Think about diamonds. They have utility to and they have value as jewelry, they used to be of almost no value as jewelry.
It's not impossible that we will be able to create to find another metal that corrosion resistant. The value as a jewelry is exactly like bitcoin. It's speculative.
I am well aware of that—because using standard economic terminology in this case, that of ascribing the property of intrinsic value to gold, is dead wrong. It’s both a misuse of language and a confusion of terms. Value is a thing agents ascribe to objects; in economic theory, it is a measured result of social relations. It is not a property of the objects themselves. The physical properties of gold are intrinsic to gold itself. The use and exchange value is created by humanity.
If everyone decides gold has no value tomorrow, it has no value. There’s nothing intrinsic about it.
> Gold has intrinsic value beyond speculation because it can be used for industrial supplies and because it’s a well-liked jewelry item. Extrinsic value contributed by speculation can drive this price away from those anchors, but the anchors exist.
You are describing use values, and each of them are further describing exactly my point. The intrinsic physical properties of gold are found to have use value by acting agents. The value found, discovered, or created on the basis of an object’s properties is not intrinsic to the object itself. It comes from outside.
> Your definition seems vaguely philosophical, but in any case your argument, as posed, is incoherent. Either you’re using the same definition as what others are, in which case your argument is simply incorrect, or you’re using an alternate definition, and your argument ceases to be relevant.
I find the argument that use and exchange values are intrinsic to any object to be far more incoherent. All of economics is rooted in philosophical positions on value, markets, commodities, exchange, and so on. The notion that value is intrinsic to an object is one of the most incoherent foundations to most people’s understanding of economics and value. I am using the same definition—but directly disputing its coherence. It’s fine if we can’t agree that the notion of intrinsic value is a confusion of terms itself, but that doesn’t render incoherent those who point this out.
This whole “gold has intrinsic value” notion is, in my opinion, a sad confusion of the intrinsic theory of value as it has over time trickled into common parlance. When most people go about saying, “Gold has the nifty property of intrinsic value”, that statement far too often suggests or implies value as a property, rather than a measured result (of socioeconomic activity among actors in a market).