Intrinsic Value

[Wuss]

I was in my US history class, and we were talking about the Panic of 1819 when the national bank asked state banks to cough up specie (gold/silver) for their paper money. I asked my teacher why is it such a big deal that money has to be backed up by gold? I mean, whatever value gold has is given to it by humans or individuals. I mean, I honestly don't see why gold is worth more than paper, but obviously it's hard to even say that, because the question is then raised, "How do we define worth?" So the point of this thread is that I would like to see if anyone can make an argument defending intrinsic value in anything. Not just gold, but love, life, anything. I'm also curious if this is a personal belief I share with a few others, or i this is a common though.

 

[Xanthyr]

I've had similar conversations concerning gold-based fiscal systems. I just don't know why we humans value gold as such. I've thought it out on my own and I always thought that because gold is "pretty" when refined, we like it.

"Ooh, it's shiny! I'll give you a bit of my food for it." That's what I think happened, to an extent, and it just went downhill from there.

 

[Junpappy]

Are you trying to ask if people can define arguments that defend a universal and undeniable intrinsic value in any particular thing?

 

[Wuss]

^yea that was part of it. and also discussing gold as xanthyr did is fine as well.

 

[Bedi Vegeta]

Metals have a history of being quite valuable because of the fact that they can be used to make many things, especially things like tools and weapons in ancient times. Gold in particular had/has value because it can be used to make very fine things, and essentially is pretty when it is made into stuff. While this is probably one legitimate reason, another is because of it's rarity. It wasn't the most easy metal to obtain, and thus became more valuable.


That was a very garbled and mixed up argument, but it gets the point across, and I'm tired so it makes it ok.

 

[Jammer]

Something's value is defined pretty much by how useful and rare it is.

Steel is extremely useful. We use it for everything. But it's also extremely common. It's not cheap, but it's not a luxury item.

Gold is in great demand for its many wonderful properties: shininess, resistance to corrosion, electrical conductivity, etc. It is also traditionally the metal, along with silver, used to show wealth. It is also relatively rare. Therefore, it is worth a ton of money.

Among collectors, rarity is everything. That's why things like moon rocks and dinosaur eggs sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though they're not useful.

Did you know that aluminum used to be worth more than gold? That's because it was so hard to extract it or something. All the richest kings in Europe used to have their cups and spoons made out of aluminum.

But none of this describes why we put value into things like gold, only how we decide the value.

The reason for wanting a gold standard is because there is a limited amount of gold. You can't just print gold with a printing press. It doesn't grow on trees. This way, the amount of money you print is always grounded, at least a little bit, in reality.

Governments can print money. But it wouldn't make sense if they just printed pieces of paper and used those pieces of paper to pay people for stuff. That's why the gold standard was used: so that the value of each dollar bill you had was equal to its amount in gold.

Or something like that. I'm not exactly sure.

 

[Marty]

There are three ways of interpreting it. By how IMPORTANT an item is, (You can think of grouping each item according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs) i.e. Food is tops, and Diamonds are bottom of the barrel. By how PLENTIFUL an item is, where weightings are determined by how much you DON'T have. i.e. As an upper middle class person in a developed country, food is never an issue for me, and thus, I rate it very low. Or by how RARE an item is, the fundamental basis of economics.

Yeah, most of that has already been expressed.

 

[Wuss]

I was sorta leaning towards a real philosophical discussion, but here's what I have to say about gold:

Fdv: the problem with that argument, is that rarity and usefulness are not intrinsic. here is what merrian webster says, "intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing". Usefulness is definitely not intrinsic, because it has nothing to do with the "essential nature" of gold, it is something that humans give it. I wouldn't consider rarity part of the essential nature of gold or any other metal either, because it requires knowledge of the state of gold in the entire world. therefore, rarity and usefulness are not intrinsic values. THe only intrinsic value that gold has that i can think of that fits that definition, is it's chemical structure.

 

[Junpappy]

I'd say it's somewhat impossible to define intrinsic "value" because value is based more or less on utility, and utility is not necessarily intrinsic.

 

[Wuss]

a definition of value according to m-w.com is

something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable

so I guess intrinsic is really just to make it clear which definition of value we're using. Like I said, I think that the only intrinsic value anything has is it's chemical nature or molecular properties. It's the only thing that humans don't assign to it, it just has it.

 

[Junpappy]

Thats not a very good definition of "value" when it uses the word "valuable" in the definition.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Every country has a Gold reserve incase they go bankrupt.

What happens if your country is hit by extreme inflation? Other countries aren't going to take your 1 Million Dollars if they can't even buy a loaf of bread with it.

Gold on the other hand, doesn't really decrease in value. And it's far more sought after than paper, as paper can become worthless in the blink of an eye.

So that's why Gold is worth more. And why every country has a Gold Reserve, just incase..

 

[commonyoshi]

Exactly what Pulvia said, although I think it's a stupid system. People only want gold because other people want gold. >_>

And what something is worth is comparable to the things we'd give up to have it. That's probably the best definition I can think of.

 

[MASAHIROx]

wuss- have you seen the zeightgeist movie?

 

[Wuss]

^ no, what exactly is it?

and pluvia: you're not taking th question the right way. I know why countries have gold in reserve, but that doesn't explain why humans give gold value at all. seriously, I'd like someone to convince me I'm wrong in saying that the only intrinsic value that anything has is it's molecular make-up, but I don't see it happening...

 

[Junpappy]

By saying that humans give gold value, you're acknowledging that the reason we value gold is not intrinsic to gold itself.

 

[Xanthyr]

So, by intrinsic value, you're pretty much saying, other than its molecular composition(The only thing that makes it unique) there is nothing more to it?

http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml

There is a good amount of information pertaining to the uses gold has. It does a very large amount of different things, and all the while, looking pretty. It may do the same things other things do, but it does all of that for one element.

 

[MattDel]

yes, something is only worth what another will pay for it, at least with regards to monetary value...

what is the value of those "priceless" collectibles if nobody will pay anything for them? nothing...

interesting topic

 

[Wuss]

crea: that's my argument yes...

xanthyr: I'm not saying that molecular composition is the definition of intrinsic value, I merely suggesting it has a possibility. and still, all of those properties of gold are part of it's molecular makeup because the reason it is all of things in that first paragraph of the article you posted, is because of it's chemical properties. Yet, those uses are intrinsically worthless, because they are used by humans.

 

[Xanthyr]

Intrinsic value is a weird concept.

You're saying because gold is molested out of its original and solitary state, it loses its intrinsic value?

The reason one would value gold is that it provides stimulus. Whether looking at it and thinking it looks interesting, or working it and making it assist in the operation of other things that provide stimulus or remove negative stimulus.


The weight of value is nothing at all except a few empty words of agreement between one human and another. Money is nothing except you and I both agree that if I give you a dollar and you hand me a donut, neither of us would feel cheated. Expand the exchange from you and myself to two different countries, and you have world exchange. Hurray.


Isn't it all very subjective no matter what you do? I don't really see any weight to what you're saying. With what your goal is [Find intrinsic value of anything], you're daring us to add 2 and 2 together and not get 4.

 

[Marty]

We could dance around all day posing new "why this and why that" type questions and all that serves to do is go back to the same tired argument that we can't ever know enough to explain fully why we do ANYTHING.

 

[Wuss]

You're saying because gold is molested out of its original and solitary state, it loses its intrinsic value?

no I'm saying that humans change gold in order to serve their purpose, therefore it isn't an intrinsic value because we give i tthat value.

The reason one would value gold is that it provides stimulus. Whether looking at it and thinking it looks interesting, or working it and making it assist in the operation of other things that provide stimulus or remove negative stimulus.

well, you're not making sense here. Looking at it and saying it stimulates you in any way, is not an intinsic value. It is something that you give value. I could look at gold, feel the exact same thing, and not give it value, because I don't value the feeling that looking at gold gave me. I have now come to the conclusion that unless God exists, no intrinsic value exists

 

[MASAHIROx]

everyone in here would prob find this movie interesting

zeitgeistmovie.com

check it our wuss

 

[Jammer]

I really don't understand how a thread about a topic this boring got anywhere.

Wait, nevermind: I hadn't noticed that this thread had turned into a discussion of fundamental philosophies.

Wow.

 

[Rici]

I'll put it to you guys this way, it's kind of a triangle movement(these are just my thoughts):

Why do people want gold?
Because you can buy stuff with it.

Why can you buy stuff with it?
Because it has value.

And why has it value?
Because people want it so they can buy stuff with it.


It's just set up like this to make the economy work. You can't have an economy where literally EVERYTHING inflates according to just supply and demand, because you need something that has a standard definition of value(note this does not mean the value of gold doesn't change). Just think of it like a second. You have to have one thing that's shows the definition of a second so you could adjust the rest of the clocks to it.

I hope I made some sense, my economical knowledge is horrible so I could be WAY off with this, but this is just how I think it's set up.

 

[Junpappy]

It's a pretty shallow argument. The debate is about how one can define value without defining a point of view.

 

[Wuss]

I already said we're not defining value, we're defining "intrinsic value", and frankly, I don't really know how to define it. Obviously things like gold and money and iPods have value, but that isn't the question.

Riciardos, I know that's why economy works, I'm just saying that what if you break that circle, and say where does the true, first, original value come from? Obviously this is highly opinionated, but that's what we're here to discuss...

Crea: that is the closest way I can get to defining intrinsic, can you think of a better way?

 

[Junpappy]

I honestly don't think that any type of value can be determined without someone/something's perspective.

Let's use food as an example, as all living things need it in some form or another. We value food because we need it to survive. Every living thing values food as sustenance. It's an intrinsic property of food that it sustains living things, therefore you could call that property an intrinsic value of food, because it is valued for that reason. But lets suppose all living things cease to exist. Food no longer is valuable as sustenance, therefore it loses its intrinsic value. But intrinsic value intrinsically cannot be altered without physically changing the object of which it belongs to.

Therefore, intrinsic value, imo, does not exist.

 

[Xanthyr]

I couldn't have worded it better myself. I couldn't wrap my words around the subject for one reason or another. Interesting topic though, really was.

 

[Wuss]

not to be really sappy, but I bet one could argue that love is intrinsically valuable. I am def not one of them, but someone could...

and yea, I was sorta thinking the same thing crea, that;s why I couldn't find anything intrinsically valuable...

 

[PaperDream]

and yea, I was sorta thinking the same thing crea, that;s why I couldn't find anything intrinsically valuable...

Well, value, by definition, implies relativity, or another party. What you guys are talking about would be a "purely natural value" with an emphasis on purely. But that's just wording.

But if it's intrinsic value is it's chemical components, and those chemical components are what give it it's social/economic value, then transitively, gold does have a natural intrinsic value.

I was going to say something else, but I just confused myself >.>''

btw masahirox, that's an interesting video, I didn't watch all of it, but from what I saw it looks pretty interesting (the idea of Christianity as astrological). I'm always a little skeptical though.