Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
Whatever people (i.e. the market) says it has. Without those opinions, it is just a rock.Kshartle wrote:What value can a shiny rock have, in your opinion?Gumby wrote: A business can have intrinsic value (that's the real definition of "intrinsic value" in the world of finance) but not a shiny rock in my opinion. Sorry, KShartle.
Surprising you would take such a narrow view considering you posted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_valueGumby wrote:You are misunderstanding me. A business can have intrinsic value (that's the real definition of "intrinsic value" in the world of finance) but not a shiny rock in my opinion. Sorry, KShartle.Kshartle wrote:Kind of implies that with humans they can. You can see where your statement could lead to some confusion. You are contradicting yourself.Gumby wrote: Not without a market (run by humans) to determine that value.
It's like me asking "Can a bird fly"? And you reply..."Not without air to provide lift". Well we have air so then yes they can fly according to you.
What you've done us taken your metallistic views and hijacked the real (finance) definition of intrinsic value to apply it to gold
We've already gone over that all value is subjective. You're confusing price with value. Do you think the value of the S&P is 1,700? People who refuse to buy at this price disagree. Price and value are different concepts and you're confusing them for the same thing.Gumby wrote:Whatever people (i.e. the market) says it has. Without those opinions, it is just a rock.Kshartle wrote:What value can a shiny rock have, in your opinion?Gumby wrote: A business can have intrinsic value (that's the real definition of "intrinsic value" in the world of finance) but not a shiny rock in my opinion. Sorry, KShartle.
It's a theory. I believe that people — like you — think that they can discern value of objects from the intrinsic properties (to me, it the definition only really makes sense when evaluating a business, such as the value of its balance sheet and assets to determine its future potential). But, I still think a rock is just a rock. It sounds like you believe a rock can be magical (to use one of your own terms).Kshartle wrote:Surprising you would take such a narrow view considering you posted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_valueGumby wrote:You are misunderstanding me. A business can have intrinsic value (that's the real definition of "intrinsic value" in the world of finance) but not a shiny rock in my opinion. Sorry, KShartle.Kshartle wrote: Kind of implies that with humans they can. You can see where your statement could lead to some confusion. You are contradicting yourself.
It's like me asking "Can a bird fly"? And you reply..."Not without air to provide lift". Well we have air so then yes they can fly according to you.
What you've done us taken your metallistic views and hijacked the real (finance) definition of intrinsic value to apply it to gold
Perhaps you didn't read it.
I'll help:
An intrinsic theory of value (also called theory of objective value) is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic or contained in the item itself. Most such theories look to the process of producing an item, and the costs involved in that process, as a measure of the item's intrinsic value.
Clicking on the underlined takes you here:
An intrinsic property is a property of a system or of a material itself or within. It is independent of how much of the material is present and is independent of the form of the material, e.g., one large piece or a collection of small particles. Intrinsic properties are dependent mainly on the chemical composition or structure of the material.[1]
A property that is not essential or inherent is called an extrinsic property.
They are just competing theories. Not really a big deal, and certainly no need to get so worked up about it. I don't think most of us care about it as much as you do. But, when you say things like this...Wikipedia.org wrote:The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
...You come off as overly harsh. Just because people don't believe in the exact same theories as you — as if all your theories have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt — doesn't mean anything. It just means they have a different opinion than you. That's all.Kshartle wrote:If someone doesn't understand why gold has value then they don't really understand economics and human decision making.
What theory are you talking about? Is it a theory that gold has value? You said it's value is based on what people will pay for it. I'm saying that is the price and it's different from value. You understand the difference right?Gumby wrote: But, when you say things like this...
...You come off as overly harsh. Just because people don't believe in the exact same theories as you — as if all your theories have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt — doesn't mean anything. It just means they have a different opinion than you. That's all.Kshartle wrote:If someone doesn't understand why gold has value then they don't really understand economics and human decision making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_valueKshartle wrote:What theory are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ ... economics)Kshartle wrote:Is it a theory that gold has value?
Yes. Again, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ ... economics)Kshartle wrote:You said it's value is based on what people will pay for it. I'm saying that is the price and it's different from value. You understand the difference right?
If you say so.Kshartle wrote:Like I said no one has to agree with someone else's subjecive value of gold, but not understanding why it has value to people shows a major hole in economic understanding and human decision making.
Wikipedia.org wrote:"Theory of value" is a generic term which encompasses all the theories within economics that attempt to explain the exchange value or price of goods and services. Key questions in economic theory include why goods and services are priced as they are, how the value of goods and services comes about, and for normative value theories how to calculate the correct price of goods and services (if such a value exists). Theories of value fall into two main categories:
Intrinsic (objective) theories
see main article: Intrinsic theory of value
Intrinsic theories, as the name implies, hold that the price of goods and services is not a function of subjective judgements.
Subjective theories
see main article: Subjective theory of value
Subjective theories hold that for an object to have economic value (a non-zero price), the object must be useful in satisfying human wants and it must be in limited supply. This is the foundation of the marginalist theory of value. In the context of explaining price, the marginal utility theory is not a normative theory of value.
In either case what are being addressed are general prices, i.e. prices in the aggregate, not a specific price of a specific good or service in a given circumstance. Theories in either class allow for deviations when a particular price is struck in a real-world market transactions, or when a price is set in some price fixing regime.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ ... economics)
I don't understand what you're trying to explain with those quotes. Can you explain any of that in simpler terms? Maybe give an example of what you're trying to convey?Gumby wrote:Wikipedia.org wrote:"Theory of value" is a generic term which encompasses all the theories within economics that attempt to explain the exchange value or price of goods and services. Key questions in economic theory include why goods and services are priced as they are, how the value of goods and services comes about, and for normative value theories how to calculate the correct price of goods and services (if such a value exists). Theories of value fall into two main categories:
Intrinsic (objective) theories
see main article: Intrinsic theory of value
Intrinsic theories, as the name implies, hold that the price of goods and services is not a function of subjective judgements.
Subjective theories
see main article: Subjective theory of value
Subjective theories hold that for an object to have economic value (a non-zero price), the object must be useful in satisfying human wants and it must be in limited supply. This is the foundation of the marginalist theory of value. In the context of explaining price, the marginal utility theory is not a normative theory of value.
In either case what are being addressed are general prices, i.e. prices in the aggregate, not a specific price of a specific good or service in a given circumstance. Theories in either class allow for deviations when a particular price is struck in a real-world market transactions, or when a price is set in some price fixing regime.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ ... economics)
What I'm trying to say that you have a particular theory of value. It is not necessarily right or wrong. But, when you make a point to insult people who do not share your particular theory of value, by saying...Kshartle wrote:I don't understand what you're trying to explain with those quotes. Can you explain any of that in simpler terms? Maybe give an example of what you're trying to convey?
...well, you sound like a blowhard someone who is unwilling to learn a new perspective. I mean, come on. People have been debating "value" for centuries and these competing theories are nothing more than a way to set up a foundation for a particular view of the world. Neither side is right or wrong here. You don't need to insult the intelligence of people who view things differently than you do (in this case, everyone).Kshartle wrote:If someone doesn't understand why gold has value then they don't really understand economics and human decision making.
What theory of value do I have, that's it's subjective and based on the intrinsic properties of something or the extrinsic utility of it? Do you think that's wrong? If so, how?Gumby wrote: What I'm trying to say that you have a particular theory of value. It is not necessarily right or wrong.
What difference? You say below that gold has value but you don't know why. You know why oil has value, you know why water has value, but not gold. Why is it so hard to understand why gold has value? - Sincere question, not a trap.Gumby wrote: You don't need to insult the intelligence of people who view things differently than you do (in this case, everyone).
In what situations does it have value as you say it does?Gumby wrote: One could argue that nobody really knows why gold has value. All I care about is that gold does have value in certain situations. I don't really care why it does outside of those situations.
I honestly have no idea what your theory is. Don't really care either (not intended to be harsh, but I really don't care). The point is that it is a theory of value (i.e. you can't really prove whatever you're saying. Nobody can).Kshartle wrote:What theory of value do I have, that's it's subjective and based on the intrinsic properties of something or the extrinsic utility of it? Do you think that's wrong? If so, how?Gumby wrote: What I'm trying to say that you have a particular theory of value. It is not necessarily right or wrong.
Meh. Again, I don't really care. But, if you are curious, it's called the Paradox of Value.Kshartle wrote:What difference? You say below that gold has value but you don't know why. You know why oil has value, you know why water has value, but not gold. Why is it so hard to understand why gold has value? - Sincere question, not a trap.Gumby wrote: You don't need to insult the intelligence of people who view things differently than you do (in this case, everyone).
Please don't ask me my opinion on it. I don't have the answers (nobody does) and again, I just don't care.Wikipedia.org wrote:The paradox of value (also known as the diamond–water paradox) is the apparent contradiction that, although water is on the whole more useful, in terms of survival, than diamonds, diamonds command a higher price in the market. The philosopher Adam Smith is often considered to be the classic presenter of this paradox. Nicolaus Copernicus, John Locke, John Law and others had previously tried to explain the disparity.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value
I don't know. I don't care. Please stopKshartle wrote:In what situations does it have value as you say it does?Gumby wrote: One could argue that nobody really knows why gold has value. All I care about is that gold does have value in certain situations. I don't really care why it does outside of those situations.
Were there even any "facts" in this thread?MangoMan wrote: Does anyone else feel this way when they read threads like this?
Well, I really did get popcorn.Gumby wrote: Were there even any "facts" in this thread?
TennPaGa wrote:Ah, you're OK. You get a mulligan on this post because it has no inherent value.Pointedstick wrote: And I really did avoid posting in this thread anymore. Oh rats…
