mmissinglink said:Miksture said:Silver does have an intinsic value as it is used as an industrial material. When the market is very low, that value comes into play. To a certain extent it also has an effect on highs as well.
Silver has utility in certain (industrial) applications, NOT intrinsic value. Utility is not the same as intrinsic value...very different in fact as i see it. If you disagree, what is silver's alleged intrinsic value? Be very specific please. When I talk about value, I am referring to the only measure that could relate to "value" in the context of silver as a commodity or asset purchased by industry/investors/collectors/stackers/all who buy - a price. So what price does silver attach to itself? And please do not list intrinsic qualities/characteristics/properties.
.
So what is "intrinsic value" then? If silver doesn't have it, then neither does gold, perhaps even more so since surely it lacks "utility" value to the extent that silver still possesses.
What then does possess "intrinsic value"? What possesses value effectively "in it's essence"?
I would argue that it is in the very "utility" of something that "intrinsic" value lies. Things like "food", "shelter", "clothing" - beyond these essential utilities surely all value is only "agreed" - a mansion only has value above a hovel in that it has greater visual appeal and is therefore more "desirable" ("valuable").
I have had a lot of people sling off at my car saying that it has "no value" but I would argue that it has the same/similar "intrinsic value" as a Rolls Royce - if I wanted to I could go to Adelaide in either tomorrow, more or less as equally well - it is the "utility" of each, i.e. its ability to transport me, in which its value to me lies. I don't think I could sell them for the same monetary price, though, since we would be in the realms of "agreed" value.