The Nature of Money by Lew Rockwell

[LoveIsTruth]

The subject of your response was free competition in currencies which you assume equivocates "freedom"...

Thus the response is aimed at "free competition in currencies"....and you dishonestly make the correlation to freedom rather than the issue which is free competition in currencies....

speaking of truth....

Why, yes, Free Competition in Currencies is the natural consequence of Freedom. Are you not free to transact in anything you please unmolested by the government, as long as you do not violate the property of another? If there is Freedom, the answer is Yes! And that's what Free Competition in Currencies is. Nothing more, nothing less. So the answer is yes, they are one and the same, -- inseparable, like two sides of a coin. By fighting against one, you fight against the other, and you are NOT justified! (See Benson Principle and Honest Money)

[Jason]

The subject of your response was free competition in currencies which you assume equivocates "freedom"...

Thus the response is aimed at "free competition in currencies"....and you dishonestly make the correlation to freedom rather than the issue which is free competition in currencies....

speaking of truth....

Why, yes, Free Competition in Currencies is the natural consequence of Freedom. Are you not free to transact in anything you please unmolested by the government, as long as you do not violate the property of another? If there is Freedom, the answer is Yes! And that's what Free Competition in Currencies is. Nothing more, nothing less. So the answer is yes, they are one and the same, -- inseparable, like two sides of a coin. By fighting against one, you fight against the other, and you are NOT justified! (See Benson Principle and Honest Money)

Its called barter....been around forever....

[LoveIsTruth]

The subject of your response was free competition in currencies which you assume equivocates "freedom"...

Thus the response is aimed at "free competition in currencies"....and you dishonestly make the correlation to freedom rather than the issue which is free competition in currencies....

speaking of truth....

Why, yes, Free Competition in Currencies is the natural consequence of Freedom. Are you not free to transact in anything you please unmolested by the government, as long as you do not violate the property of another? If there is Freedom, the answer is Yes! And that's what Free Competition in Currencies is. Nothing more, nothing less. So the answer is yes, they are one and the same, -- inseparable, like two sides of a coin. By fighting against one, you fight against the other, and you are NOT justified! (See Benson Principle and Honest Money)

Its called barter....been around forever....

It is called Freedom, and it is Eternal. As for barter, it's when MANY commodities are directly exchanged for MANY other commodities, i.e. there is no common medium of exchange. This is inefficient. 100% commodity based monetary system, in contrast, chooses the most convenient commodity (or two) and uses it as a COMMON medium of exchange for all other commodities. Drastic difference.

Free Market is perfectly capable of choosing most preferred medium of exchange. No need for coercion of government.

That is the difference, and it is in perfect harmony with Fundamental Principles of Liberty, including the Benson Principle (he was a prophet, you know), without which Freedom CANNOT exist.

[Jason]

Its called barter....been around forever....

It is called Freedom, and it is Eternal. As for barter, it's when MANY commodities are directly exchanged for MANY other commodities, i.e. there is no common medium of exchange. This is inefficient. 100% commodity based monetary system, in contrast, chooses the most convenient commodity (or two) and uses it as a COMMON medium of exchange for all other commodities. Drastic difference.

Free Market is perfectly capable of choosing most preferred medium of exchange. No need for coercion of government.

That is the difference, and it is in perfect harmony with Fundamental Principles of Liberty, including the Benson Principle (he was a prophet, you know), without which Freedom CANNOT exist.

How do you have a "common medium of exchange" without a common government? Any time that has happened in history?

Why not 3 or 4 or 5 or 6....no room in the till?

In a representative government....don't people choose via their government???

Without the protections of government....how do you have freedom or liberty?

[LoveIsTruth]

How do you have a "common medium of exchange" without a common government? Any time that has happened in history?

Yes. Gold and silver have been commonly accepted currencies for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, WITHOUT common government. Surprised? It is because they have INTRINSIC value and do NOT need the government to give them value. This is why they are the preferred currencies of a Free Market, and have been so for centuries.

Why not 3 or 4 or 5 or 6....no room in the till?

Historically the major portion of the market was taken by 3: Gold, Silver, and brass/copper, with others very distant 4th and 5th like grain etc. But ALL were COMMODITIES with INTRINSIC value, INDEPENDENT of any government. Thus it is the currency of free people. Now these 3 or 4, with value determined by WEIGHT, and thus universally recognized, are MUCH less confusing then DOZENS and DOZENS of unbacked paper currencies floating all over the world, with their value uncertain as air, controlled by the whims and machinations of politicians and conniving banksters. You have to admit that.

In a representative government....don't people choose via their government???

Choose what? If you mean choose what to do with private property, then the answer is NO! Private Property is NOT subject to the vote of a majority. The ONLY vote that counts is that of the OWNER of the property, as long as he is not violating the property of another. These are the Fundamental Principles of Liberty.

Without the protections of government....how do you have freedom or liberty?

You have private protection. (See Private Law Society, and before you spout your lip calling the authors names, try to disprove any of their points. You will fail.) Justice and security is just another product, (and very valuable at that). Private sector can deliver it at much higher quality and at a much lower price than a government forced monopoly. The history of the world teaches that with a voice of thunder. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. You have a natural unalienable right to defend yourself and your property. That right cannot be properly taken from you by any government. And if you have that right, you can delegate it to whoever you will, including private sector. And private sector as a rule, does infinitely better job at it than a government forced monopoly.

[EclecticLibertarian]

...It is because they have INTRINSIC value and do NOT need the government to give them value. This is why they are the preferred currencies of a Free Market, and have been so for centuries.

Actually, there's no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is entirely in the mind of the valuer. The reason why gold, silver, and copper have been used so ubiquitously is that they are relatively scarce, they are easily portioned and manipulated, they are durable--being easily stored for long periods of time, and such cannot be said for virtually every other type of physical material available. As such, they make a very widely accepted representation of value and medium of exchange. These metals would loose their utility as a medium of exchange should they become too rare or too common. Their relative scarcity tends to fix their value in the minds of those who possess them or desire to possess them.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

...It is because they have INTRINSIC value and do NOT need the government to give them value. This is why they are the preferred currencies of a Free Market, and have been so for centuries.

Actually, there's no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is entirely in the mind of the valuer. The reason why gold, silver, and copper have been used so ubiquitously is that they are relatively scarce, they are easily portioned and manipulated, they are durable--being easily stored for long periods of time, and such cannot be said for virtually every other type of physical material available. As such, they make a very widely accepted representation of value and medium of exchange. These metals would loose their utility as a medium of exchange should they become too rare or too common. Their relative scarcity tends to fix their value in the minds of those who possess them or desire to possess them.

Nice EclecticLibertarian! Welcome to the forum! Look forward to hearing more from you!

[LoveIsTruth]

Actually, there's no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is entirely in the mind of the valuer.

In this case there is no such thing as beauty, utility, or value (not just intrinsic, but any value for that matter), because they all exist in the mind of the people. You are wrong. If value exist (which it does), so does intrinsic value, which simply means the value is not assigned by a whim of a politician, but by Free Market, by supply and demand of a real commodity, a commodity that cannot be conjured out of nothing, nor produced without corresponding effort. That's what intrinsic value means, and it does exist, because value exists.

So you are wrong.

[LoveIsTruth]

I wanted to say one more thing:

[LoveIsTruth]

Jim Grant: Sound Money and Why the Fed is dead wrong

[EclecticLibertarian]

Actually, there's no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is entirely in the mind of the valuer.

In this case there is no such thing as beauty, utility, or value (not just intrinsic, but any value for that matter), because they all exist in the mind of the people. You are wrong. If value exist (which it does), so does intrinsic value, which simply means the value is not assigned by a whim of a politician, but by Free Market, by supply and demand of a real commodity, a commodity that cannot be conjured out of nothing, nor produced without corresponding effort. That's what intrinsic value means, and it does exist, because value exists.

So you are wrong.

No, you are mistaken. The value of anything and everything is in the mind, the value of anything, like beauty, is in the mind or eye of the beholder. If no one is aware of the existence of a thing, it has no value. An intrinsic quality is a innate, natural, defining and necessary quality such as mass, size, or density, without which the item in question would not be properly identified as such. An imputed quality is not innate, not natural, and not a defining or necessary quality, such as value, beauty, and even utility. Imputed qualities exist only in the minds of those who hold them about a particular thing or things. The imputed value, beauty, or utility may vary from individual to individual and may be influenced by such things as the intelligence and knowledge of the valuer, the abundance or scarcity of the item, the visual symmetry, shape, color, and texture of the thing, and the relative utility of the thing in the fulfillment of one's needs or desires. Even if an entire community imputes value to a thing equally, it does not change the intrinsic nature of the thing. The value that is imputed is imputed individually and exists individually in the mind that imputes the value and not in the thing.

In short, intrinsic value does not exist because value is not an intrinsic quality, it is an imputed one.

[LoveIsTruth]

Fine. However, in the context used, "intrinsic value" simply means that the value is a product of a Free Market, i.e. supply and demand, and not assigned arbitrarily by a bankster or politician. A purchasing power that is backed by a REAL and valuable commodity (that cannot be conjured out of nothing nor without an effort), and not merely by a government coercion.

So intrinsic value is a perfectly valid statement in its proper context. There are an infinity of meanings and only a finite number of words; so it shouldn't surprise you that the same word may mean different but valid things depending on context. Example: you may argue that you not using a mouse at the computer, because mouse is a mammal, yada, yada, yada, but you are ignoring its proper and perfectly valid context and therefore a perfectly valid and reasonable usage. Yes computer mouse is not a mammal, but it exists. And so does intrinsic value in its proper context. It is the meaning that is important, and my meaning is crystal clear.

[EclecticLibertarian]

Fine. However, in the context used, "intrinsic value" simply means that the value is a product of a Free Market, i.e. supply and demand, and not assigned arbitrarily by a bankster or politician.

Well now, if that's what you're talking about, then you're talking about market value, not intrinsic value.

So intrinsic value is a perfectly valid statement in its proper context.

Yes, but you're still using the wrong terminology for the context.

Example: you may argue that you not using a mouse at the computer, because mouse is a mammal, yada, yada, yada, but you are ignoring its proper and perfectly valid context and therefore a perfectly valid and reasonable usage. Yes computer mouse is not a mammal, but it exists. And so does intrinsic value in its proper context. It is the meaning that is important, and my meaning is crystal clear.

This is actually a bad example because you are using the wrong terminology for the context, even if your intended meaning is "crystal clear" in your own mind.

[LoveIsTruth]

You are wrong. Intrinsic value is a valid phrase and it means what I said it means. Here is some proof:

Investopedia explains 'Intrinsic Value'
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What is intrinsic value? definition and meaning
Intrinsic value: financial definition of intrinsic value
How to Calculate Intrinsic Value for Stock Investing
Intrinsic Value of a Business

So it is a valid phrase and is used all the time.

[EclecticLibertarian]

While it is true that Intrinsic Value is a phrase that is used in Investing, its meaning is not the meaning you have suggested. The meaning you have suggested is properly termed "market value" as I mentioned previously. As for your link bombing...

Investopedia explains 'Intrinsic Value' as the value of a business or asset based not on what the market collectively says it is worth or is willing to buy and sell it for, but instead based on what analysts decide that it is worth.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - this link discusses the notions of Intrinsic Moral Value or Intrinsic Good which has no bearing or relevance to the discussion at hand which is a valuation of comparative quantitative worth as relating to the exchange of goods and services.

What is intrinsic value? definition and meaningThis link provides essentially the same definition as that of investopedia.

Intrinsic value: financial definition of intrinsic valueYet another link which asserts the existence of an "actual" or "true" value which is determined by analysts to be some arbitrary amount which has little or no basis in what people are willing to pay for it.

How to Calculate Intrinsic Value for Stock Investing This site actually makes a point of the fact that intrinsic value is very subjective, dependent largely on speculation.

Intrinsic Value of a Business This site likewise makes the point that intrinsic value is a subjective valuation based on speculation about how a company is likely to perform in the future.

You would really do well to actually use the correct, existing terminology for the ideas and meanings you are wishing to discuss instead of giving new terms to established ideas or worse yet, using the wrong terms with pre-existing meanings for the ideas you're wishing to discuss. Gold and Silver have a market value. Unfortunately, markets can be manipulated. Artificial scarcity can be created; additionally, unexpected abundance can wreak havoc on the market as well. The commodity based currency that works best is that which is in sufficient quantity as to provide market liquidity but not subject to sudden changes in supply or demand. Precious metals have generally worked well in the past so long as the market is not manipulated (as has happened in the past with both Gold and Silver).

Nevertheless, I still stand by my previous statement that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is entirely in the mind of the buyer or seller, it is not an intrinsic quality such as mass, size, color, texture, density, conductivity, or any other physical property. Value is the quantity and quality of something which a person is willing to exchange for something else.

[Jason]

While it is true that Intrinsic Value is a phrase that is used in Investing, its meaning is not the meaning you have suggested. The meaning you have suggested is properly termed "market value" as I mentioned previously. As for your link bombing...

Investopedia explains 'Intrinsic Value' as the value of a business or asset based not on what the market collectively says it is worth or is willing to buy and sell it for, but instead based on what analysts decide that it is worth.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - this link discusses the notions of Intrinsic Moral Value or Intrinsic Good which has no bearing or relevance to the discussion at hand which is a valuation of comparative quantitative worth as relating to the exchange of goods and services.

What is intrinsic value? definition and meaningThis link provides essentially the same definition as that of investopedia.

Intrinsic value: financial definition of intrinsic valueYet another link which asserts the existence of an "actual" or "true" value which is determined by analysts to be some arbitrary amount which has little or no basis in what people are willing to pay for it.

How to Calculate Intrinsic Value for Stock Investing This site actually makes a point of the fact that intrinsic value is very subjective, dependent largely on speculation.

Intrinsic Value of a Business This site likewise makes the point that intrinsic value is a subjective valuation based on speculation about how a company is likely to perform in the future.

You would really do well to actually use the correct, existing terminology for the ideas and meanings you are wishing to discuss instead of giving new terms to established ideas or worse yet, using the wrong terms with pre-existing meanings for the ideas you're wishing to discuss. Gold and Silver have a market value. Unfortunately, markets can be manipulated. Artificial scarcity can be created; additionally, unexpected abundance can wreak havoc on the market as well. The commodity based currency that works best is that which is in sufficient quantity as to provide market liquidity but not subject to sudden changes in supply or demand. Precious metals have generally worked well in the past so long as the market is not manipulated (as has happened in the past with both Gold and Silver).

Nevertheless, I still stand by my previous statement that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is entirely in the mind of the buyer or seller, it is not an intrinsic quality such as mass, size, color, texture, density, conductivity, or any other physical property. Value is the quantity and quality of something which a person is willing to exchange for something else.

Way to hit the nail on the head!!!

[LoveIsTruth]

While it is true that Intrinsic Value is a phrase that is used in Investing, its meaning is not the meaning you have suggested. The meaning you have suggested is properly termed "market value" as I mentioned previously. As for your link bombing...

Investopedia explains 'Intrinsic Value' as the value of a business or asset based not on what the market collectively says it is worth or is willing to buy and sell it for, but instead based on what analysts decide that it is worth.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - this link discusses the notions of Intrinsic Moral Value or Intrinsic Good which has no bearing or relevance to the discussion at hand which is a valuation of comparative quantitative worth as relating to the exchange of goods and services.

What is intrinsic value? definition and meaningThis link provides essentially the same definition as that of investopedia.

Intrinsic value: financial definition of intrinsic valueYet another link which asserts the existence of an "actual" or "true" value which is determined by analysts to be some arbitrary amount which has little or no basis in what people are willing to pay for it.

How to Calculate Intrinsic Value for Stock Investing This site actually makes a point of the fact that intrinsic value is very subjective, dependent largely on speculation.

Intrinsic Value of a Business This site likewise makes the point that intrinsic value is a subjective valuation based on speculation about how a company is likely to perform in the future.

You would really do well to actually use the correct, existing terminology for the ideas and meanings you are wishing to discuss instead of giving new terms to established ideas or worse yet, using the wrong terms with pre-existing meanings for the ideas you're wishing to discuss. Gold and Silver have a market value. Unfortunately, markets can be manipulated. Artificial scarcity can be created; additionally, unexpected abundance can wreak havoc on the market as well. The commodity based currency that works best is that which is in sufficient quantity as to provide market liquidity but not subject to sudden changes in supply or demand. Precious metals have generally worked well in the past so long as the market is not manipulated (as has happened in the past with both Gold and Silver).

Nevertheless, I still stand by my previous statement that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is entirely in the mind of the buyer or seller, it is not an intrinsic quality such as mass, size, color, texture, density, conductivity, or any other physical property. Value is the quantity and quality of something which a person is willing to exchange for something else.

Yea, and there is no such thing as a computer mouse (because every idiot knows that mouse has a nose)!


As for gold and silver price manipulation, purchasing power of commodity based money is much less susceptible to manipulation than the purchasing power of worthless paper, and it NEVER goes to zero as all paper must, hence the great benefit of money having INTRINSIC VALUE.

[EclecticLibertarian]

Yea, and there is no such thing as a computer mouse (because every idiot knows that mouse has a nose)!

I'm not sure how to make this more clear and understandable. Intrinsic value is not an objective thing. It is purely subjective, existing entirely in the mind of the individual. Even in investing, intrinsic value is nothing more than the estimation on the part of the analyst or investor as to what the market value of a business, asset, or commodity would be were it not subject to the irrational wild speculation or market manipulation.

As for gold and silver price manipulation, purchasing power of commodity based money is much less susceptible to manipulation than the purchasing power of worthless paper, and it NEVER goes to zero as all paper must, hence the great benefit of money having INTRINSIC VALUE.

But commodity backed money does not have Intrinsic Value since there's really no such thing. Commodity based money has a market value when an exchange or trade takes place, but such a value is entirely subjective. Perhaps an illustration will help explain my point.

Adam has a widget he is willing to give to Bob if Bob will in turn give Adam 1 ounce of his gold. What is Adam's widget worth? What is the 1 oz of Bob's gold worth? If you said the Adam's widget is worth 1 oz of gold, neither Adam, nor Bob would agree with you. As far as Adam is concerned, the widget is worth less than 1 oz of Bob's gold, which is why he is willing to trade it for an ounce of Bob's gold. To Bob, however, it is worth more than an ounce of his gold, which is why Bob is willing to give up 1 ounce of his gold to acquire it. So, what is the value of Adam's widget? Is it less than or more than the value of 1 oz of Bob's gold? What is the value of Bob's gold? Is it worth less than or more than one of Adam's widgets? Does either the widget or the gold have any intrinsic value? Or is the value of each whatever Adam or Bob attribute to it?

[LoveIsTruth]

Yea, and there is no such thing as a computer mouse (because every idiot knows that mouse has a nose)!

I'm not sure how to make this more clear and understandable. Intrinsic value is not an objective thing. It is purely subjective, existing entirely in the mind of the individual. Even in investing, intrinsic value is nothing more than the estimation on the part of the analyst or investor as to what the market value of a business, asset, or commodity would be were it not subject to the irrational wild speculation or market manipulation.

Excellent! Yes, it does exist in the mind, which does not make it any less important or real than the mind itself. Would you agree that the mind is the most important thing there is anyway and is real? So is intrinsic value real, and valuable, though exist in the mind (all value exist in the mind anyway, doesn't mean that value does not exist!) Intrinsic value, is a value determined by supply and demand in a free market, and not by the whims of banksters and politicians.

Can I make it any more clear? It exists. It is valid. It is valuable. Any questions? Does your mind exist? Is it valuable? Is it real? Yes! So is my point!

As for gold and silver price manipulation, purchasing power of commodity based money is much less susceptible to manipulation than the purchasing power of worthless paper, and it NEVER goes to zero as all paper must, hence the great benefit of money having INTRINSIC VALUE.

But commodity backed money does not have Intrinsic Value since there's really no such thing.

Then there is no such thing as value period, and there is no such thing as your mind.

Commodity based money has a market value when an exchange or trade takes place, but such a value is entirely subjective.

It is much less subjective then the value of worthless paper backed by a whim of a bankster or politician. Will you dispute that? Isn't all price subjective? Does it mean it does not exist? No! So the question is WHO will set the price? Politician? Bankster? Or Free Market? Do you get it? INTRINSIC VALUE (i.e. value independent of immoral use of government force) allows commodity based money to operate without government coercion (i.e. immoral force that violates the Benson Principle, or the Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty).

[EclecticLibertarian]

Excellent! Yes, it does exist in the mind, which does not make it any less important or real than the mind itself. Would you agree that the mind is the most important thing there is anyway and is real?

I am hesitant to categorically agree with the statement, not that I don't agree that the mind is real or the most important, distinguishing characteristic of what makes a person human; but that I do not wish to suggest an agreement with an idea you have not explicitly defined and described.

So is intrinsic value real, and valuable, though exist in the mind (all value exist in the mind anyway, doesn't mean that value does not exist!) Intrinsic value, is a value determined by supply and demand in a free market, and not by the whims of banksters and politicians.

No, as I stated before, that is not intrinsic value, that is market value.

Can I make it any more clear? It exists. It is valid. It is valuable. Any questions? Does your mind exist? Is it valuable? Is it real? Yes! So is my point!

Your logic is exceedingly flawed here.

But commodity backed money does not have Intrinsic Value since there's really no such thing.

Then there is no such thing as value period, and there is no such thing as your mind.

No. The mind and value are not the same, nor are they entities in the same realm or sphere. Value is a thought or idea; the mind is that which does the thinking.

It is much less subjective then the value of worthless paper backed by a whim of a bankster or politician. Not really.
Isn't all price subjective? Of course
Does it mean it does not exist? No! That's not the argument I'm making. I'm suggesting that there is nothing INTRINSIC about value.
So the question is WHO will set the price? That is certainly a valid concern with complex consequences.
Politician? Wouldn't recommend it.
Bankster? Again, would not recommend it.
Or Free Market? This is probably the best method.
Do you get it? Yes, but I'm less certain that you do.
INTRINSIC VALUE (i.e. value independent of immoral use of government force) allows commodity based money to operate without government coercion

No. That is not Intrinsic Value. It is free-market Value, i.e., value that is established by an open, free market which is subject to market influences such as supply and demand.

[LoveIsTruth]

It is much less subjective then the value of worthless paper backed by a whim of a bankster or politician. Not really.
Isn't all price subjective? Of course
Does it mean it does not exist? No! That's not the argument I'm making. I'm suggesting that there is nothing INTRINSIC about value.
So the question is WHO will set the price? That is certainly a valid concern with complex consequences.
Politician? Wouldn't recommend it.
Bankster? Again, would not recommend it.
Or Free Market? This is probably the best method.
Do you get it? Yes, but I'm less certain that you do.
INTRINSIC VALUE (i.e. value independent of immoral use of government force) allows commodity based money to operate without government coercion

No. That is not Intrinsic Value. It is free-market Value, i.e., value that is established by an open, free market which is subject to market influences such as supply and demand.

Whatever! If you do not like calling it INTRINSIC VALUE (as a common practice, and specific meaning among most investors and investment dictionaries, as I demonstrated with links before, where they were using non-existent, according to you, phrase ascribing to it exactly the meaning I stated, i.e. free market, supply and demand determined value); if you do not wish to use the phrase commonly used by dictionaries, and clearly understood by investors and economic professionals, as I demonstrated, call it whatever you want! Call it "market value," it's just fine; call it Micky Mouse, call it WHATEVER! It does not change the meaning of what I said. Money must have "market value" as you would say it, or as I and the dictionaries would say it INTRINSIC VALUE, so that purchasing power of such money would NOT depend on the whims of politicians, but on supply and demand of underlying commodity.

You are arguing against a common use with a specific meaning to the context. The word "INTRINSIC" has multiple meanings depending on the context. It means something different in the context you are trying to force it into. In essence you are trying to say that it is wrong to call a computer mouse a mouse, because mouse is a mammal. That is stupid, because your context is wrong and inapplicable. So is your criticism of the use of the common AND VALID investor phrase "intrinsic value" (as attested by multiple investment dictionaries) is erroneous because you ascribe to the word "intrinsic" a wrong context, and then argue against a meaning that no one ascribed to it in the first place. You are using the wrong context, and therefore fight against an inapplicable meaning. It is a straw-man argument. Your context is wrong. Your point is invalid, because you ignore the proper context and proper VALID meaning for the context as attested by multiple dictionaries which use the phrase you say does not exist. You are wrong. Argue this one with a dictionary, not with me!

[EclecticLibertarian]

Whatever! If you do not like calling it INTRINSIC VALUE (as a common practice, and specific meaning among most investors and investment dictionaries, as I demonstrated with links before, where they were using non-existent, according to you, phrase ascribing to it exactly the meaning I stated, i.e. free market, supply and demand determined value);

No. Read those definitions again, that is NOT the definition for the term "Intrinsic Value" used by investors.

if you do not wish to use the phrase commonly used by dictionaries, and clearly understood by investors and economic professionals, as I demonstrated, call it whatever you want!

Actually, I'm pointing out that it is you who are misusing the term "intrinsic value" instead of the proper term "Market Value". Time and again you give the definition for the term "Market Value" only to insist upon giving it the term "Intrinsic Value".

Call it "market value," it's just fine; and accurate. call it Micky Mouse, call it WHATEVER! It does not change the meaning of what I said. Money must have "market value" as you would say it, or as I and the dictionaries would say it INTRINSIC VALUE, so that purchasing power of such money would NOT depend on the whims of politicians, but on supply and demand of underlying commodity.

No, that is not the meaning of the term "Intrinsic Value" in the dictionaries, it is the meaning of the term "Market Value" in the dictionaries.

You are arguing against a common use with a specific meaning to the context. The word "INTRINSIC" has multiple meanings depending on the context. It means something different in the context you are trying to force it into.

No. It means something different than the meaning you are trying to ascribe to it.

In essence you are trying to say that it is wrong to call a computer mouse a mouse, because mouse is a mammal.

No. I am saying the term "intrinsic value" is a misnomer because there is nothing intrinsic about value. It's like calling a particular formula for milk chocolate "true milk chocolate" or saying it's a fact that Chocolate is a better flavor than Vanilla.

[

That is stupid, because your context is wrong and inapplicable. So is your criticism of the use of the common AND VALID investor phrase "intrinsic value" (as attested by multiple investment dictionaries) is erroneous because you ascribe to the word "intrinsic" a wrong context, and then argue against a meaning that no one ascribed to it in the first place.

What is stupid and wrong is creating a straw-man argument that doesn't even bear any resemblance to the one I have been making. As to my criticism of the term "intrinsic value", I was simply making the point that it is a very common mistake that people make supposing that anything at all has any intrinsic value. Such thinking leads to making foolish and often costly and wasteful mistakes, especially in investing.

You are using the wrong context, and therefore fight against an inapplicable meaning. It is a straw-man argument. Your context is wrong. Your point is invalid, because you ignore the proper context and proper VALID meaning for the context as attested by multiple dictionaries which use the phrase you say does not exist. You are wrong. Argue this one with a dictionary, not with me!

I'd rather let the dictionaries argue my point for me with respect to your misuse of the term "Intrinsic Value" when what you really mean is "Market Value". Check the dictionary definition of both terms and then come back and tell me which term is the appropriate term for the definition you keep using. Once you accept that you have been using the wrong term and you can properly define the investment term "Intrinsic Value", then we can move forward in discussing why the term is itself a misnomer.

[LoveIsTruth]

I will use whatever term I like. Wasn't it you who said that "intrinsic value" does not exist? Well dictionaries disagree with you! They have entries for the phrase you say does not exist. So I will use it, and you use whatever you want.

As for BlueMoon5, are you him? Your arguing style is similar to that liar. (I am not calling you a liar yet, just asking).

Cheers.

[EclecticLibertarian]

I will use whatever term I like. Wasn't it you who said that "intrinsic value" does not exist? Well dictionaries disagree with you! They have entries for the phrase you say does not exist. So I will use it, and you use whatever you want.

What I have said (perhaps poorly, rather than plainly and clearly) is that value is not intrinsic, it is imputed or ascribed and entirely subjective. I have said that "intrinsic value" is a misnomer because it presupposes that value is an objective, identifiable, measurable quality of an product or service. I was attempting to point out that gold and silver have no objective, intrinsic value making them more suitable than anything else that might be used as a currency or a asset or commodity backing a currency; rather, they are commodities that have a commonly perceived approximate relative value or market value which makes them suitable.

As to the Investor term "Intrinsic Value", it is the attempt to calculate the value of a business, asset, or security apart from any market inflation or deflation of the price due to market manipulation or irrational trading. The folly of such a notion is that because value is inherently subjective, there is no actual standard of value that they can point to and say "this is the true value" or "this is the actual value". A buyer, a seller, a lender, an insurer, and a tax adjuster will all have a different valuation for any given property. Of all these different valuations, which is the "intrinsic value"? The same can be said of a collectible, or a work of art, or any number of other goods or services. Some people have no problem paying $80 for a concert ticket that others couldn't be paid to attend. What's the intrinsic value of the performance?

As for BlueMoon5, are you him? Your arguing style is similar to that liar. (I am not calling you a liar yet, just asking).

No, I'm not him. I was working on an argument against some of the things he was posting and his nick was in my scratchpad buffer... didn't realize I was posting his nick instead of yours until you mentioned it.

Cheers.

Cheers back.

[LoveIsTruth]

I have said that "intrinsic value" is a misnomer because it presupposes that value is an objective, identifiable, measurable quality of an product or service. I was attempting to point out that gold and silver have no objective, intrinsic value making them more suitable than anything else that might be used as a currency or a asset or commodity backing a currency;

Wrong. 6000 years of history teach with a voice of thunder that you are wrong. Gold money of ancient Egypt and Rome are as valuable as when they were minted, but unbacked paper money of more than a few decades old have lost most or all of its purchasing power. So you are demonstrably wrong.

As to the Investor term "Intrinsic Value", it is the attempt to calculate the value of a business, asset, or security apart from any market inflation or deflation of the price due to market manipulation or irrational trading.

Exactly. Therefore money with intrinsic value is 100% commodity backed money whose value cannot be conjured out of nothing (like that of paper money) nor stolen by government's printing press. That's why 100% commodity based currency is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man.