3 ms·

I’m sorry, but after reading a few of these “rebuttals”, it’s really clear it’s just nonsense. These are not rebuttals, they are basically going around the argu

I’m sorry, but after reading a few of these “rebuttals”, it’s really clear it’s just nonsense. These are not rebuttals, they are basically going around the argument and saying that it doesn’t matter in the case of bitcoin. Isn’t it absolutely obvious to any economist that “intrinsic value” is a real thing, and that the value of an apple is something entirely different from the value of, say, gold? And the rebuttal is… intrinsic value is a flawed concept? To me it looks like someone is trying really hard to not understand the critique, and write some sort of reasoning why it doesn’t matter.

DennisP 4y ago
Many people might consider it obvious but as far as I know, intrinsic value isn't a concept in modern economics. Whatever someone is willing to pay is what that thing is worth to that person, that's it.
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  “Intrinsic Value” is absolutely a thing in economics, and describes that the value of an asset is intrinsic or contained within the asset itself. It’s not necessarily the same as economic value, but to say that it isn’t a concept sounds like the type of FUD that the article spreads. Besides, it’s not as if it’s difficult to understand that, say, the economic value of food (or stocks in some business if you prefer) is something different from a currency. By focusing on whether “intrinsic value” is real or not is focusing on syntactics, without even considering the underlying argument. That makes it an incredibly poor rebuttal.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    Well I googled, and you're right, the concept does exist. Here's wikipedia's entry on intrinsic theories of value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value It mentions Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, but nothing in modern economics. The only other thing I found for "intrinsic value" involved investors looking at the values of companies, but that's investing, not economics. Of course it's impossible for me to prove a negative. Maybe you could respond with a link of your own, describing the role of intrinsic value in modern economic theory?
    - stingraycharles 4y ago
      You keep focusing on the term “intrinsic value”, while ignoring the underlying argument. Is it that difficult to understand that the value of things such as food, real estate, stocks is something entirely different from a currency?

DennisP 4y ago

Many people might consider it obvious but as far as I know, intrinsic value isn't a concept in modern economics. Whatever someone is willing to pay is what that thing is worth to that person, that's it.

stingraycharles 4y ago
“Intrinsic Value” is absolutely a thing in economics, and describes that the value of an asset is intrinsic or contained within the asset itself. It’s not necessarily the same as economic value, but to say that it isn’t a concept sounds like the type of FUD that the article spreads. Besides, it’s not as if it’s difficult to understand that, say, the economic value of food (or stocks in some business if you prefer) is something different from a currency. By focusing on whether “intrinsic value” is real or not is focusing on syntactics, without even considering the underlying argument. That makes it an incredibly poor rebuttal.
- DennisP 4y ago
  Well I googled, and you're right, the concept does exist. Here's wikipedia's entry on intrinsic theories of value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value It mentions Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, but nothing in modern economics. The only other thing I found for "intrinsic value" involved investors looking at the values of companies, but that's investing, not economics. Of course it's impossible for me to prove a negative. Maybe you could respond with a link of your own, describing the role of intrinsic value in modern economic theory?
  - stingraycharles 4y ago
    You keep focusing on the term “intrinsic value”, while ignoring the underlying argument. Is it that difficult to understand that the value of things such as food, real estate, stocks is something entirely different from a currency?