Exactly! People talk about gold having some sort of intrinsic value. It only has value because we humans like shiny objects for whatever reason and the fact that it has the scarcity of a limited supply. Scarcity+ demand creates value. Is it intrinsic necessarily? No. But "intrinsic value" really just translates to human demand or desire for it.
Gold does have a 5000+ year history as money .. something to keep in mind. I think crypto is great in all sorts of ways (crypto-gold being super exciting), but central banks, royalty, multi-generational dynasties, and any "mega buck" type people or institutions all collect and covet gold. It is also used in electronics and all sorts of other applications, silver even moreso. I believe proper portfolio includes both crypto and pm's, for different reasons.
Yes, but do you agree it’s still just a proxy (though an historically reliable one) for what human beings generally decide (in the moment of transaction) is valuable?
I could link to Mark Dice videos where he offers people a bar of silver or a candy bar and they chose the candy bar, but I wont.
Yes,I agree with this. Know the video too - classic.
Actually gold and certain other metals do have intrinsic value based on their use in materials/products/tech...for example gold has special electrical properties and is used in many areas in the electronics & semiconductor industries where it provides superior performance (same goes for platinum)
Yeah I guess that's what I'm trying to say, it has value because we use it and therefore give value to it. It's kindof a semantic point, but my point was just that "intrinsic value" isn't really a thing, although value certainly is.
It has industrial use, sure, which means others have a higher likelyhood of saying, “Yes, that’s valuable to me so I’ll pay X for it.”
To me, it’s still just a proxy for how others will decide financial value in the moment of transaction.
I will vote for you sir @lukestokes
Thanks!
Well said. Something is only “bad” if it decreases the well-being of conscious creatures.
Are you a Sam Harris fan by chance? ;)
I do like how he phrases this and I did enjoy reading The Moral Landscape. I'd be open to better approaches, but this one makes the most sense to me right now. His book on the problem with lying was good also. I've watched a number of his lectures and interviews.
I thought as much^^ I've also come to adopt that exact sentence of contributing or affecting the well-being of conscious creatures as the most basic fundament on which morality is built, and considerations of whether an action is good or bad can be made. So it struck me that it had to be likely that you must have come across him and picked it up to.
I think I must have watched his TED Talk on the topic at least 10 times. Both for the content and arguments, as well as just to pick up on his way of presenting ideas in presentations.
Still, I might have enjoyed even more his arguments in the end of faith and also his somewhat controversial stance on free will. I'm sure these could all be starting points for hour long conversations if we so wanted ;)