/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50178268
There is no inherent value to the fag called OP

>>50178268
>There is no inherit value to BTC
BTC inherited it's value from it's parents.

>>50178268
There is no inherent value to anything you stupid niggers. Inherent value is a meme for retards, all value is exchange value or else purely subjective value.

>>50178268
Finance and economics are pseudoscientific make believe garbage, capitalism is inherently unstable, exploitative and unsustainable with a built in expiration date. All finance assets like money,crypto,debt,bonds etc are purely parasitic in nature and serve no purpose nor have any inherent value and private property is theft. Ever escalating recessions, poverty, disease, pollution, slavery and wars are fundamental and necessary functions of it and every single financier or crypto dudebro is a literal parasite.

>>50178415
There is use value "cracker". It is convenient for a financier parasite to adopt the ideology that value doesnt exist since he deals with finance assets that are purely parasitic and hold no USE value. You will die alone sad hated and in pain like you deserve and like you WANT right? "Worthless" thing?

exherent value goes to infinity, poorchuds

congrats on owning finite value assets

>>50178415
>There is no inherent value to anything you stupid niggers

retard midwit take. certain things like food, safety/security, personal autonomy, etc will always have value because people will always compete for them

Yawn… god /biz/ is boring these days

>>50178855
>le sigh...
Then you should go back to ribbit

>>50178268
There's no inherent value in anything outside energy resources like oil or uranium.

>>50178913
Data has inherit value

>>50178843
>certain things like food, safety/security, personal autonomy
None of these things are specific goods. These are just categories of things. No specific good (in economics) has intrinsic value. Within a category of good there are various substitutes. Furthermore, humans could theoretically become cyborgs and no longer need "food." Again, in economics there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Economics deals with means, not ends. And means are highly substitutable. Hence any given mean is only valued in comparison to other substitutable means. It in itself is not an end.

>>50178940
>humans could theoretically become cyborgs and no longer need "food.

lol stopped reading after this reddit-tier bullshit. gtfo faggit

>>50179083
Not an argument. My example may seem silly for food, but the logic is important to keep in mind. There are many things people take for granted as "intrinsically valuable." Yet, when conditions change or new technology is invented, suddenly those items' values are seen in a new light. In economics, which has a narrower scope than human existence in totality, ALL means are contingent and are not absolute.

>>50178415
>>50178843
>food
big one right here
rich or poor you still need and/or want food

>>50178919
STOP FUCKING SAYING INHERIT

>>50178415
>There is no inherent value to anything you stupid niggers.
You wish, moron.

>>50178940
>humans could theoretically become cyborgs
Take your meds, nutball.

>>50179186
"Intrinsic" doesn't mean immutable you goddamn mongoloid.

>>50179245
Sorry

>>50179201
Yes, material beings DO require energy. But stating this says nothing about the *economic* value of this banana or that can of soup or this battery or that tub of goyslop. Economics DEAL WITH SPECIFIC GOODS NOT CATEGORIES OF THINGS. CATEGORIES OF THINGS ARE NOT BOUGHT AND SOLD IN THE MARKETPLACE. SPECIFIC, CONCRETE ITEMS HAVE PRICE RATIOS. AND THE VALUE OF THESE ITEMS IS CONTINGENT NOT ABSOLUTE.

>>50179305
At a certain point, mutability overrides any notion of intrinsic value. If something is of almost 0 value to me, then in what way can its value be said to be "intrinsic"? And if there is no substantial floor, then isn't everything and anything intrinsically valuable? The term loses distinction.

>>50179408
"Intrinsic" = value as an end rather than a means. Economics construed as a 'science' of means would be futile if no ends existed.

>>50179305
it kind of does imply that, yes. It's a value that doesn't change as long as the object doesn't change, despite changes in the surroundings.

>>50179577
Economics of course recognizes that Ends exist, but it has nothing to say about them. Economics can only pick up after an end has been established and then continue on with the Means.

https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html

>>50178843
>retard midwit take. certain things like food, safety/security, personal autonomy, etc will always have value because
Oh, you think food has "inherent" value that is independent from humans? Then tell me what was the value of an apple before humans appeared.

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock...

Exactly, apples didn't have value because VALUE IS ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE AND PERCEIVED BY HUMANS. IT'S NOT LIKE WEIGHT, COLOR, VOLUME WHICH ARE INTRINSIC. VALUE IS ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>50179578
Wrong. The intrinsic value of something is the value it has beyond being a means to some other end.

>>50179641
>but it has nothing to say about them
It must say that ends are valuable if the means are to have any value. The value of means is subordinate to the value of ends.

>>50179656
Color is also subjective. The qualities we attribute to things reflect both the underlying nature of the object and the ways in which the object is processed by our perceptual and cognitive systems. Nothing is "intrinsic" in the sense of being fully independent of our minds. Rather, we attribute intrinsic value to things which we value in themselves, rather than as a means to an end.

>>50179677
Economics in and of itself cannot rationally compare ends. Thus it cannot attribute values to them. It can only attribute values to means in light of a given end. And of course, we can make certain assumptions in our economic models given pragmatic desires to have "good enough" approximations for markets with recognizable participants with "the usual" ends. But it's important to note that this is merely a pragmatic concession.

>>50178415
Dollars and bitcoins don’t have inherent value, because they don’t have properties (such as taste, entertainment value, texture, etc.) that cause them to have value. They only have value insofar as they are able to exist as a claim on resources, but don’t have value in and of themselves.

>>50179797
>Economics in and of itself cannot rationally compare ends.
Nonsense. That's like saying medicine is not about health but only about the effects of various medical interventions.

>>50178268
>There is no inherit value to Gold
>There is no inherit value to stocks
>There is no inherit value to Bonds
>There is no inherit value to Land
>There is no inherit value to Currency
>There is no inherit value to Houses
>There is no inherit value to People
Dogs have value.
God is value.

>>50179797
Austrian economics is the only economics that matters. Even the smart politicians that pretend Austrian economics is nonsense know this.

>>50179874
I want you to assign a numerical value to one final end and then a numerical value to another final end. And then I want you tell me on what basis you established this ratio.

https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html

https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth/html

>>50179950
Not everything is precisely quantifiable, especially in the realm of political economy. Which is why "economics" as you understand it is pure pseudoscience.

>>50179788
>Color is also subjective. The qualities we attribute to things reflect both the underlying nature of the object and the ways in which the object is processed by our perceptual and cognitive systems
The intrinsic properties of the color is that the object absorbs and reflects certain wavelenghts. That's what we perceive as color, but the capacity to absorb and reflect wavelengths are a intrinsic property of the object.

The property of value, on the other hand, is always human-projected. Even the same kind of food has different value according to who you ask. Understanding that value is always subjective is essential to understand the basic mechanics of the economy.

>>50179996
>Not everything is precisely quantifiable, especially in the realm of political economy.
Correct
>Which is why "economics" as you understand it is pure pseudoscience.
Non-sequitur

>>50179998
Value is intersubjective, similar to color. That doesn't make it a mere matter of taste. The fact is, humans do better under certain circumstances rather than others. Medicine covers the individual biological aspects of human flourishing, and sociology/economics/politics covers its societal aspects. If there is no such thing as human flourishing, or if it is completely a matter of taste as you seem to imply, then all these subjects are pointless endeavors.

>>50178268
>inherit
This is a guy whose opinion I can trust.

>>50178268
test

>>50178268
The same agitprop threads on /pol Yawn. With the pepe. A bot.
I prefer the US dollar. It is backed by gold and there is limited amount in circulation and I trust bankers and the tribe they belong to. Our government spends wisely, and I know they act in my nation's best interest. Bitcoin on the other hand is just used by ignorant, financially illiterate persons impulsively.

>>50179661
i.e. a value that persists between contexts, yes.

>>50178843
What is the inherent value of 1 food, then? How many safety/security can I buy for 100 USD? You're the retard midwit.

>>50179908
What the hell does a kangaroo know about demand elasticity?

>>50179863
So the inherent values of gold are "shiny", "yellow", "ductile". Nothing has inherent monetary value because the definition of monetary value is predicated on the act of exchange.