6 ms·

> there is no such thing. not in bitcoin, not in usd, not in gold. all value is extrinsic and assigned by market. Just as a nit, there absolutely is. Food prov

> there is no such thing. not in bitcoin, not in usd, not in gold. all value is extrinsic and assigned by market. Just as a nit, there absolutely is. Food provides value in that you can eat it to survive. Housing provides value in that it provides shelter from the elements. A goat provides milk and you can eat it. Barter systems typically involve the trade of two such goods. The problem is that such goods typically spoil with time, which is a primary advantage of fiat currency -- it is not subject to physical constraints. Historically, people also used things like salt, which had intrinsic value (for preserving and flavoring food) but didn't spoil. But the use becomes so abstract that its pointless to haul salt around. Eventually you transition to precious metals, which also have some intrinsic value (for engineering various goods) but much less concrete. Then you transition to effective "gold IOUs" (gold-backend currency). The idea of having a currency completed untethered to anything of value is relatively new. One of the most interesting aspects of bitcoin is proponents fervently advocate for one element of the gold standard (a fixed supply), but not the other (something physical of utility).

keymone 6y ago
i didn't express myself correctly. the use-value exists, definitely, but it's effect on exchange-value of the commodity is diminished as that commodity becomes widely used medium of exchange/store of value. gold's use-value in tech and jewelery is a small fraction of gold's exchange-value. > One of the most interesting aspects of bitcoin is proponents fervently advocate for one element of the gold standard (a fixed supply), but not the other (something physical of utility). if gold became useless for exchange purpose and only it's use-value was relevant, market price would go down to pretty much nothing, the scammiest cryptocurrency exit-scams would be brought to shame by that drop. so physical utility of gold has absolutely no relevance to gold-standard. even jewelery use-value was mostly driven by exchange-value, so that would become irrelevant as well and the market would be flooded by worthless golden trinkets and rings.
- throwaway-8c93 6y ago
  > gold's use-value in tech and jewelery is a small fraction of gold's exchange-value According to Wikipedia: "The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry.". Now, there are ETFs, futures, options, etc, that inflate the speculative portion, but the valuation due to physical properties is still likely within an order of magnitude of its total market value.
  - keymone 6y ago
    jewelery produced and stored is not necessarily jewelery used. jewelery inflates speculative portion as much if not more as other instruments you listed and if gold was stripped of it's exchange value, most of the jewelery in the world would be up for sale to recover at least some of the "investment" (even if that investment was inherited, which it is in vast majority of cases).
samatman 6y ago
The value to a particular consumer of food and housing can be zero, presuming they have enough and are not in the market for those goods. That's what it means to say that goods lack intrinsic value. The exception is of course money, whatever good it is that is winning the Keynesian beauty contest of "good which I think everyone else will want as much of as they can get".
Matticus_Rex 6y ago
Sorry if this seems even more nitpicky; I spent about a year in grad school thinking I wanted to do monetary theory for the rest of my life, and the main thing I got out of it was that "intrinsic value" is a bad concept that runs cover for muddy thinking and ultimately confuses everyone much more. > Food provides value in that you can eat it to survive. People value food (in many cases) because they can eat it. It doesn't mean that the value is intrinsic to the food. In fact, in many cases the value of the food is zero (or even negative! -- it still needs to be disposed-of) because no one wants it. > Housing provides value in that it provides shelter from the elements. People value housing for that reason, but housing doesn't have that value on its own. It has value because people want to use it for something. There are many abandoned houses that show this value is not inherent, but rather conditional and context-dependent (like all other value). > A goat provides milk and you can eat it. Yes, some people value goats for that reason. If you put one in my house, it will immediately have negative value, because not only do I not want it, the time it will take me to find a good way to get rid of it will dwarf the amount I can sell it for. > Historically, people also used things like salt, which had intrinsic value (for preserving and flavoring food) Again, people value it for that reason, but the value isn't in the thing (intrinsic). The value is imputed to the salt by people. > Eventually you transition to precious metals, which also have some intrinsic value (for engineering various goods) Again, no, but this one is perhaps the easiest to understand -- the value is imputed by people because of what they can do with it. In situations where they can't do anything with it, it has no value, revealing that the value was never intrinsic in the first place. > The idea of having a currency completed untethered to anything of value is relatively new. I would argue that this is not the case, and comes from a narrow way of looking at value. Say I'm a nerd (this may or may not be a true story). In early 2012, I find out about a thing called Bitcoin. I don't understand it very well, but it sounds cool, and I mine some just to say I have it, and then tell people I have it. I value it. I can't do anything with it physically, but that's true of a lot of things. I own a number of pieces of art that I value, even though I can't really do anything with them other than know they're there, sitting in my closet or storage unit. It doesn't make the value somehow not-real, because all value (in this sense of the word) is imputed to things by people; it's not in the things themselves.
- benlivengood 6y ago
whatshisface 6y ago
Gold is actually less deflationary that bitcoin - the gold supply grows with improved technology and general global expansion of industrialization.

keymone 6y ago

i didn't express myself correctly. the use-value exists, definitely, but it's effect on exchange-value of the commodity is diminished as that commodity becomes widely used medium of exchange/store of value. gold's use-value in tech and jewelery is a small fraction of gold's exchange-value. > One of the most interesting aspects of bitcoin is proponents fervently advocate for one element of the gold standard (a fixed supply), but not the other (something physical of utility). if gold became useless for exchange purpose and only it's use-value was relevant, market price would go down to pretty much nothing, the scammiest cryptocurrency exit-scams would be brought to shame by that drop. so physical utility of gold has absolutely no relevance to gold-standard. even jewelery use-value was mostly driven by exchange-value, so that would become irrelevant as well and the market would be flooded by worthless golden trinkets and rings.

throwaway-8c93 6y ago
> gold's use-value in tech and jewelery is a small fraction of gold's exchange-value According to Wikipedia: "The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry.". Now, there are ETFs, futures, options, etc, that inflate the speculative portion, but the valuation due to physical properties is still likely within an order of magnitude of its total market value.
- keymone 6y ago
  jewelery produced and stored is not necessarily jewelery used. jewelery inflates speculative portion as much if not more as other instruments you listed and if gold was stripped of it's exchange value, most of the jewelery in the world would be up for sale to recover at least some of the "investment" (even if that investment was inherited, which it is in vast majority of cases).

samatman 6y ago

The value to a particular consumer of food and housing can be zero, presuming they have enough and are not in the market for those goods. That's what it means to say that goods lack intrinsic value. The exception is of course money, whatever good it is that is winning the Keynesian beauty contest of "good which I think everyone else will want as much of as they can get".

Matticus_Rex 6y ago

Sorry if this seems even more nitpicky; I spent about a year in grad school thinking I wanted to do monetary theory for the rest of my life, and the main thing I got out of it was that "intrinsic value" is a bad concept that runs cover for muddy thinking and ultimately confuses everyone much more. > Food provides value in that you can eat it to survive. People value food (in many cases) because they can eat it. It doesn't mean that the value is intrinsic to the food. In fact, in many cases the value of the food is zero (or even negative! -- it still needs to be disposed-of) because no one wants it. > Housing provides value in that it provides shelter from the elements. People value housing for that reason, but housing doesn't have that value on its own. It has value because people want to use it for something. There are many abandoned houses that show this value is not inherent, but rather conditional and context-dependent (like all other value). > A goat provides milk and you can eat it. Yes, some people value goats for that reason. If you put one in my house, it will immediately have negative value, because not only do I not want it, the time it will take me to find a good way to get rid of it will dwarf the amount I can sell it for. > Historically, people also used things like salt, which had intrinsic value (for preserving and flavoring food) Again, people value it for that reason, but the value isn't in the thing (intrinsic). The value is imputed to the salt by people. > Eventually you transition to precious metals, which also have some intrinsic value (for engineering various goods) Again, no, but this one is perhaps the easiest to understand -- the value is imputed by people because of what they can do with it. In situations where they can't do anything with it, it has no value, revealing that the value was never intrinsic in the first place. > The idea of having a currency completed untethered to anything of value is relatively new. I would argue that this is not the case, and comes from a narrow way of looking at value. Say I'm a nerd (this may or may not be a true story). In early 2012, I find out about a thing called Bitcoin. I don't understand it very well, but it sounds cool, and I mine some just to say I have it, and then tell people I have it. I value it. I can't do anything with it physically, but that's true of a lot of things. I own a number of pieces of art that I value, even though I can't really do anything with them other than know they're there, sitting in my closet or storage unit. It doesn't make the value somehow not-real, because all value (in this sense of the word) is imputed to things by people; it's not in the things themselves.

benlivengood 6y ago

whatshisface 6y ago

Gold is actually less deflationary that bitcoin - the gold supply grows with improved technology and general global expansion of industrialization.