It's like saying, "gold is not money"

[mmissinglink]

In all honesty though, definition of "intrinsic value" has been taken out of economic context here to an extreme level...

Plato's understanding of intrinsic value is fundamentally the same as mine. In no example would Plato have argued that to a rock, enjoying the playing of music is intrinsically good. For Plato, intrinsic value always required a human judgment. Without humans to judge whether some action was consequentially pleasurable or not, intrinsic value had no meaning. Therefore, things like gold, without humans, have no intrinsic value. The fact that there's intrinsic value in people doing pleasurable things (like for some, holding a bar of gold in their hand and for others hugging a tree) doesn't mean that the object itself (the gold or the tree) have intrinsic value....it's the activity that the human judges to be pleasurable is what is said to have intrinsic value.

Understanding the etymology of the word "intrinsic" we know that the naming convention (claiming that inanimate things have intrinsic value) used by the financial industry is nonsensical.

This philosophical context including such things as rocks enjoying music (bordering on Buddhism or some spiritual-like sanctity) is actually nonsensical to the financial/economic industry.

Again wrcmad, you are wrong and have completely misunderstood my comments. "Intrinsic" means one thing only, unto itself or inward. Gold has intrinsic properties or qualities but can not have intrinsic value because it requires someone, extrinsically, to give it any value at all. The fact that the financial industry has misapplied the term "intrinsic" is not your fault or mine, but it is a complete misapplication of the term. I reject its misapplication because it is completely illogical and senseless to use that term in the way the financial industry wants people to use it. It's really simple but you have over complicated all of this, again.

Good day.



.

 

[Stark]

What is the point of turning debate into useless spam about cat cooking? If you don't have any arguments or anything to say that is relevant to thread title then then it's better to not post useless things...

Because humour has the capacity to lighten a moment, allowing those who participate in a debate a chance to catch their breath and realise how fortunate they are to be able to engage in debate in the first place.

As opposed to cats.

Hahahahahah. I should write this somewhere.

I love humor, but don't want to see them thread turning into spam.

 

[alor]

first, there is no such a thing as martian, WB is hallucinating from magical ritual down from demons.

second, when the same logic is applied on humans, why we eat? we will get hungry again, from gold that's it.

third, we can wonder where the martian's head came from? WB's hand

4th those martian just a dream would be in the cage just like our kitty

 

[mmissinglink]

What is the point of turning debate into useless spam about cat cooking? If you don't have any arguments or anything to say that is relevant to thread title then then it's better to not post useless things...

Because humour has the capacity to lighten a moment, allowing those who participate in a debate a chance to catch their breath and realise how fortunate they are to be able to engage in debate in the first place.

As opposed to cats.

I think you may mean well shiney but it is depravity, not humor that believes that it's okay to mock unconscionable violence. What you are doing, shiney, is no different qualitatively than if someone were to post gruesome pictures of holocaust victims and try to get people to think it's funny or to make mockery of cooking the body parts of 9/11 victims. What you are doing comes off as depraved indifference to individuals.



.

 

[alor]

to worms, all dead looks like food

 

[bordsilver]

What is the point of turning debate into useless spam about cat cooking? If you don't have any arguments or anything to say that is relevant to thread title then then it's better to not post useless things...

Because humour has the capacity to lighten a moment, allowing those who participate in a debate a chance to catch their breath and realise how fortunate they are to be able to engage in debate in the first place.

As opposed to cats.

I think you may mean well shiney but it is depravity, not humor that believes that it's okay to mock unconscionable violence. What you are doing, shiney, is no different qualitatively than if someone were to post gruesome pictures of holocaust victims and try to get people to think it's funny or to make mockery of cooking the body parts of 9/11 victims. What you are doing comes off as depraved indifference to individuals.



.

We can start a "what is humour?" thread. For me, taking an aphorism like "there are many ways to skin a cat" and trying to count them is funny - especially if it involves ridiculous methods or conjures up images like tubes of toothpaste.

 

[menotcrimex]

What is the point of turning debate into useless spam about cat cooking? If you don't have any arguments or anything to say that is relevant to thread title then then it's better to not post useless things...

+ 100

But then link is a battler for a debate....but thats all he's out for, a debate / agruement. Timewaster imo

 

[mmissinglink]

Because humour has the capacity to lighten a moment, allowing those who participate in a debate a chance to catch their breath and realise how fortunate they are to be able to engage in debate in the first place.

As opposed to cats.

I think you may mean well shiney but it is depravity, not humor that believes that it's okay to mock unconscionable violence. What you are doing, shiney, is no different qualitatively than if someone were to post gruesome pictures of holocaust victims and try to get people to think it's funny or to make mockery of cooking the body parts of 9/11 victims. What you are doing comes off as depraved indifference to individuals.

.

We can start a "what is humour?" thread. For me, taking an aphorism like "there are many ways to skin a cat" and trying to count them is funny - especially if it involves ridiculous methods or conjures up images like tubes of toothpaste.

You can think anything is funny, the holocaust, 9/11, skinning cats, mutilating babies' genitalia, etc, etc....go ahead...that's your prerogative. I certainly see mocking atrocities and abject violence as depravity.

But then link is a battler for a debate....but thats all he's out for, a debate / agruement. Timewaster imo

You are the cast iron kettle calling the stainless steel teapot black because it is you, not I, that argues for the sake of arguing. But I shouldn't expect you to make comments that are sensible since your track record here proves their anything but.

Good day



.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

What is the point of turning debate into useless spam about cat cooking? If you don't have any arguments or anything to say that is relevant to thread title then then it's better to not post useless things...

Because humour has the capacity to lighten a moment, allowing those who participate in a debate a chance to catch their breath and realise how fortunate they are to be able to engage in debate in the first place.

As opposed to cats.

I think you may mean well shiney but it is depravity, not humor that believes that it's okay to mock unconscionable violence. What you are doing, shiney, is no different qualitatively than if someone were to post gruesome pictures of holocaust victims and try to get people to think it's funny or to make mockery of cooking the body parts of 9/11 victims. What you are doing comes off as depraved indifference to individuals.



.

You've lost the plot mate.

 

[mmissinglink]

Because humour has the capacity to lighten a moment, allowing those who participate in a debate a chance to catch their breath and realise how fortunate they are to be able to engage in debate in the first place.

As opposed to cats.

I think you may mean well shiney but it is depravity, not humor that believes that it's okay to mock unconscionable violence. What you are doing, shiney, is no different qualitatively than if someone were to post gruesome pictures of holocaust victims and try to get people to think it's funny or to make mockery of cooking the body parts of 9/11 victims. What you are doing comes off as depraved indifference to individuals.

.

You've lost the plot mate.

There was no plot to lose....just depraved spam.

Want to mock the horrors others are forced to endure, find a psychopath forum to lavish those thoughts upon. Otherwise, just stick to the topic please, for everyone's sake.




.

 

[wrcmad]

Again wrcmad, you are wrong and have completely misunderstood my comments. "Intrinsic" means one thing only, unto itself or inward. Gold has intrinsic properties or qualities but can not have intrinsic value because it requires someone, extrinsically, to give it any value at all. The fact that the financial industry has misapplied the term "intrinsic" is not your fault or mine, but it is a complete misapplication of the term. I reject its misapplication because it is completely illogical and senseless to use that term in the way the financial industry wants people to use it. It's really simple but you have over complicated all of this, again.

It is merely your opinion that I am wrong.... nothing more.
What you have dismissed is context. Many words have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used.
You are misquoting the financial industry use of "intrinsic value" to describe only that of gold - the financial industry is much broader than just gold, and encompasses a huge range of uses for the term intrinsic.
Why the use of this term is problematic, illogical or senseless, I don't know. You didn't answer that question.
However, there are many financial assets or instruments where the term "intrinsic value" is entirely appropriate IMO.
In financial context, intrinsic value is all relative to other assets or pricing mechanisms. Such prices have already been quantitatively established by markets, as a decisive quotable figure. It does not need to take into account rocks listening to music, human judgement, or people doing pleasurable things. The number has been established as fact, and is a reference price to work from. In this context the use of "intrinsic value" is entirely appropriate.

Cheers

 

[menotcrimex]

I think you may mean well shiney but it is depravity, not humor that believes that it's okay to mock unconscionable violence. What you are doing, shiney, is no different qualitatively than if someone were to post gruesome pictures of holocaust victims and try to get people to think it's funny or to make mockery of cooking the body parts of 9/11 victims. What you are doing comes off as depraved indifference to individuals.

.

We can start a "what is humour?" thread. For me, taking an aphorism like "there are many ways to skin a cat" and trying to count them is funny - especially if it involves ridiculous methods or conjures up images like tubes of toothpaste.

You can think anything is funny, the holocaust, 9/11, skinning cats, mutilating babies' genitalia, etc, etc....go ahead...that's your prerogative. I certainly see mocking atrocities and abject violence as depravity.

But then link is a battler for a debate....but thats all he's out for, a debate / agruement. Timewaster imo

You are the cast iron kettle calling the stainless steel teapot black because it is you, not I, that argues for the sake of arguing. But I shouldn't expect you to make comments that are sensible since your track record here proves their anything but.

Good day



.

Do you not realise that pretty much all you do is dismiss other people's idea's when they don't agree with yours!

You don't need to be able to [ glimpse ] to see the disdain you carry.

Face that old niggle. Shed it and positive things could happen for you.

Good luck

 

[mmissinglink]

Again wrcmad, you are wrong and have completely misunderstood my comments. "Intrinsic" means one thing only, unto itself or inward. Gold has intrinsic properties or qualities but can not have intrinsic value because it requires someone, extrinsically, to give it any value at all. The fact that the financial industry has misapplied the term "intrinsic" is not your fault or mine, but it is a complete misapplication of the term. I reject its misapplication because it is completely illogical and senseless to use that term in the way the financial industry wants people to use it. It's really simple but you have over complicated all of this, again.

It is merely your opinion that I am wrong.... nothing more.
What you have dismissed is context. Many words have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used.
You are misquoting the financial industry use of "intrinsic value" to describe only that of gold - the financial industry is much broader than just gold, and encompasses a huge range of uses for the term intrinsic.
Why the use of this term is problematic, illogical or senseless, I don't know. You didn't answer that question.
However, there are many financial assets or instruments where the term "intrinsic value" is entirely appropriate IMO.
In financial context, intrinsic value is all relative to other assets or pricing mechanisms. Such prices have already been quantitatively established by markets, as a decisive quotable figure. It does not need to take into account rocks listening to music, human judgement, or people doing pleasurable things. The number has been established as fact, and is a reference price to work from. In this context the use of "intrinsic value" is entirely appropriate.

Cheers

I have already noted several times why the use of that term is senseless. I am the one, not you, who is putting it into context. I know, as well as you, that intrinsic value isn't used in the financial industry to describe only gold...I never once argued that it was only being used to describe gold. My argument doesn't change dependent on the asset. There's no intrinsic value in fiat currency either in spite of the fact that there's labor and resources involved in its creation.

Those decisive quotable figures you seem to worship are based on extrinsic, fluctuating valuation....period. The cost of labor and resources are fluctuating and the value of them is based on (in most cases) consensus judgments. Even "scarcity" is a fluctuating value. For example, many rare earth metals are not rare and as technology improves, the ability to extract and isolate them makes them more abundant than many other elements that are otherwise viewed as common. You can not have intrinsic value of a thing that requires extrinsic valuation to derive its value. That's just senseless.

I have no problem if the financial industry uses an appropriate term, but "intrinsic" is senseless in the context it is used.

I reject within context, the misuse of the term "intrinsic" as part of the financial industry naming convention for all the reasons I have already given.

Enjoy the day.



.

 

[mmissinglink]

We can start a "what is humour?" thread. For me, taking an aphorism like "there are many ways to skin a cat" and trying to count them is funny - especially if it involves ridiculous methods or conjures up images like tubes of toothpaste.

You can think anything is funny, the holocaust, 9/11, skinning cats, mutilating babies' genitalia, etc, etc....go ahead...that's your prerogative. I certainly see mocking atrocities and abject violence as depravity.

But then link is a battler for a debate....but thats all he's out for, a debate / agruement. Timewaster imo

You are the cast iron kettle calling the stainless steel teapot black because it is you, not I, that argues for the sake of arguing. But I shouldn't expect you to make comments that are sensible since your track record here proves their anything but.

Good day

.

Do you not realise that pretty much all you do is dismiss other people's idea's when they don't agree with yours!

You don't need to be able to [ glimpse ] to see the disdain you carry.

Face that old niggle. Shed it and positive things could happen for you.

Good luck

Get back on your medications....you are making a fool of yourself yet again.

If you would only tell the truth once in your life, that would be a giant positive step for you. To correct your lies: 1) I never argue against any positions I don't agree on. There are countless positions I agree on and countless postings here in this forum that I have read and never posited an argument against and frequently use the "Say Thanks" button to approve. 2) I don't carry disdain EXCEPT for people like you who maliciously mischaracterize others.

Until you can come to these discussions with a morsel of honesty and respect, I have to cease giving your insane comments any credibility by responding to them.

Take care of yourself.



.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Why is it problematic? It works.
To me, intrinsic value and base value are the same.
While you present a good argument, I still think you are overcomplicating intrinsic value in an economic context, with a somewhat enigmatic philosophical interpretation.

and that's putting it very mildly (and politely) :lol:

Economics is a philosophy yippe

NOT if you follow the Austrian model ... that's a science!

The Keynsian cr@p they teach at Universities and apply to economies through threat of force - well now THAT's something totally different :lol:

 

[mmm....shiney!]

NOT if you follow the Austrian model ... that's a science!

I think you might need a refresher yip.

 

[alor]

be it keynes or austrian, economics follow the atheist system

there is no god like perfection in a man made systems. too bad both would still get to the same result, be it from the left or right.

they did not travel from above or below

 

[mmm....shiney!]

be it keynes or austrian, economics follow the atheist system

there is no god like perfection in a man made systems. too bad both would still get to the same result, be it from the left or right.

they did not travel from above or below

Not true alor. Austrian economics recognizes that economic activity is primarily about the behaviour of individuals seeking to satisfy their needs and desires. Because it recognizes that economics is a system of behaviour and not a science, it is understood that perfection ie equilibrium is impossible, but should be a goal to strive for. Austrian economists understand that the best way to advance human satisfaction of needs and desires is to not restrain the pursuit of those goals, but ensure that a free market exists and operates without coercion, ensuring the liberty of all rational humans is not endangered.

Keynesians and monetarists believe they can tweak the market. They have formulae and concentrate on the market as a whole, not on the individual participants.

 

[alor]

the best way to advance human satisfaction of needs and desires is to not restrain the pursuit of those goals.

this do lead to mob rule at the freedom of others unfortunately.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

the best way to advance human satisfaction of needs and desires is to not restrain the pursuit of those goals.

this do lead to mob rule at the freedom of others unfortunately.

No, that's a common misconception and is used by the proponents of managed systems as a stick to wield authority and it's probably been discussed in this place before. Cue = bored silver and his amazing "links to other posts".