3 ms·
You could do one better but that would be missing the point. The claim was that gold have intrinsic value and bitcoin doesn't. But to the extent of discussing
by ThomPete 9y ago
You could do one better but that would be missing the point.
The claim was that gold have intrinsic value and bitcoin doesn't. But to the extent of discussing intrinsic value in economical terms then bitcoin does too.
In other words you can't both have your cake and eat it.
Either both bitcoin and gold has intrinsic value in economical terms or none of them have in philosophical terms.
- wallace_f 9y agoThat's not true.
- ThomPete 9y agoWhat's not true?
- FabHK 9y agoThis: > Either both bitcoin and gold has intrinsic value in economical terms or none of them have in philosophical terms The argument is precisely that gold has, and bitcoin hasn't, intrinsic value (in the economic sense). Gold can fulfil the functions of money, but also has other uses. Bitcoin can fulfil some functions of money (barely), but has no other uses.
- ThomPete 9y agoBitcoin can fulfill the function of money (but just like gold it's cumbersome, try and pay for a tshirt with gold in H&M). Bitcoin also have other uses such as store of value (just like gold) and a unique footprint which makes it useful in the digital space. So no it's not wrong at all. There was a time when gold wasn't useful for much other than as a store of value and as jewelry. If we are to follow your own argument then Gold had no intrinsic value because of it's limited use before the industrial revolution. Only the market determines whether something have value. The idea of intrinsic value in anything (also when used in economic terms) is simply misleading and not representing reality but rather the illusion of a reality that doesn't exist. Gold can loose it's value completely.