It’s an abuse of definitional scope. The commenter is not arguing against a point that has not been made (that would be a strawman); instead, they’re arguing against the applicability of terminology in an argument that was made, but by using an incorrect or alternate definition for the terminology.

In this specific instance, the commenter is using a non-standard definition of “intrinsic value” to argue that gold has no such value. I like to call this “Wittgensteinian chaos” - you see it happen whenever two or more parties fail to explicitly define terms before arguing. It’s usually accidental, not deceptive. In particular, this is likely to happen with technical terminology that does not look enough like jargon to prompt people to look it up, because it also has a coherent, non-technical meaning.

Now circle back to “intrinsic value” - if you aren’t immediately aware that this is a specific economic term[1], you might think to yourself, “oh I get what he’s trying to say”, and proceed to try and refute it. I think economics is particularly prone to this in internet debates.

That it is consistent does not mean it is equivalent. Humans are pretty poor at avoiding conflating their terms and categories into messes of confusion. This fiction that gold (or any other thing) possesses intrinsic value is one of best examples of such confusion in economics. Things have value because people decide they do—and as soon as they decide otherwise, that value steadily declines to zero, despite how many people ardently believed that value was intrinsic to the thing itself, as if it was one of the physical properties of the thing, an indivisible part of the object. This is nonsense.

Moreover, there is no logical fallacy here on my part. I was not refuting an argument that was not made—I was directly disputing the coherence of an economic adage the average person has been taught is actually rational and sensible when it was brought into the discussion.

Value is never intrinsic, but always created by economic actors—the logical fallacy is arguing otherwise.

Gold, like silver, various other precious metals, and a number of other things—like land, for example—have long histories of value. The historic value of gold among human societies can not be disputed. But that long history has not infused value as a physical property upon gold—or any other thing—itself.

My original statement was neither outrageous nor illogical. Bitcoin is in this case a rather perfect example that highlights exactly what I’m pointing out—the value of bitcoin is in no way intrinsic to bitcoin itself. Bitcoin possesses a number of properties which, analogous to similar properties in a physical object like gold, are found to have both use and exchange value among economic agents. But that value is not actually a core property of bitcoin anymore than value is a core property of gold. Agents identify properties in bitcoin and assign them value. This is always where value comes from—use values from the things one can do with the commodity, and exchange values from the things one can buy with the commodity.

Gold had intrinsic value before electronics, but for basically the same reason: it's immutable.

The bitcoin blockchain is also immutable.

You are describing use values that are found in the intrinsic physical properties of gold by human agents. Their societies then assent to recognizing those use values. That value is not intrinsic to gold itself—it is not one of gold’s properties.

Thinking “gold is valuable” is a shorthand for this recognition of use and exchange values on the basis of gold’s intrinsic physical properties. But the value found in those properties is not a property of gold itself.

Gold has utility in electronics. It has nothing to do with it's value.

Bitcoin have utility as a store of value.

> Your definition of “intrinsic value” does not match that of standard economic terminology.

I am well aware of that—because using standard economic terminology in this case, that of ascribing the property of intrinsic value to gold, is dead wrong. It’s both a misuse of language and a confusion of terms. Value is a thing agents ascribe to objects; in economic theory, it is a measured result of social relations. It is not a property of the objects themselves. The physical properties of gold are intrinsic to gold itself. The use and exchange value is created by humanity.

If everyone decides gold has no value tomorrow, it has no value. There’s nothing intrinsic about it.

> Gold has intrinsic value beyond speculation because it can be used for industrial supplies and because it’s a well-liked jewelry item. Extrinsic value contributed by speculation can drive this price away from those anchors, but the anchors exist.

You are describing use values, and each of them are further describing exactly my point. The intrinsic physical properties of gold are found to have use value by acting agents. The value found, discovered, or created on the basis of an object’s properties is not intrinsic to the object itself. It comes from outside.

> Your definition seems vaguely philosophical, but in any case your argument, as posed, is incoherent. Either you’re using the same definition as what others are, in which case your argument is simply incorrect, or you’re using an alternate definition, and your argument ceases to be relevant.

I find the argument that use and exchange values are intrinsic to any object to be far more incoherent. All of economics is rooted in philosophical positions on value, markets, commodities, exchange, and so on. The notion that value is intrinsic to an object is one of the most incoherent foundations to most people’s understanding of economics and value. I am using the same definition—but directly disputing its coherence. It’s fine if we can’t agree that the notion of intrinsic value is a confusion of terms itself, but that doesn’t render incoherent those who point this out.

This whole “gold has intrinsic value” notion is, in my opinion, a sad confusion of the intrinsic theory of value as it has over time trickled into common parlance. When most people go about saying, “Gold has the nifty property of intrinsic value”, that statement far too often suggests or implies value as a property, rather than a measured result (of socioeconomic activity among actors in a market).

You can start as many cryptos currencies as you want you won't be able to get the price of a bitcoin. You can't because they aren't bitcoin.

It's not at all like Netflix or a DVD.

Before electronics gold had two types of usages. Jewelry and store of value. Before a monetary system gold had some value as jewelry, before the ability to create jewelry or ornamental objects it had no value. In other words the "intrinsic value" is contextual and not objective.

Intrinsic value means the actual value but the only way to determine the actual value is to see what people will pay for it in an exchange. In other words the market determines the value of gold based on a set of assumptions. These assumptions can change in the future. Bitcoin is also valued by the market based on a set of assumptions.

The world doesn't disagree with parent, in fact it agrees with him and bitcoin is the proof of this.

You can't both have your cake and eat it. Either gold and bitcoin have intrinsic value by the economic definition and the market determines what that is or neither of them have.

Well aware of the economic term that's not the problem.

The claim was that gold have intrinsic value and bitcoin doesn't. But to the extent of discussing intrinsic value in economical terms then bitcoin does too.

In other words you can't both have your cake and eat it.

Either both bitcoin and gold has intrinsic value in economical terms or none of them have in philosophical terms.

The value of them are both based on the trust that the market will accept that value which currently for bitcoin is fluctuating very rapidly and for gold more slowly.

Gold's intrinsic value is perhaps 10% of it's current value. You are not holding gold because you want to make jewelry, you are holding because of it's perceived value and it's scarcity.