Quote from: Erdogan on May 03, 2015, 11:59:39 AM

Quote from: deisik on May 03, 2015, 11:53:38 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 03, 2015, 11:44:06 AM

Quote from: deisik on May 03, 2015, 11:26:15 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 03, 2015, 11:07:12 AM

The exchange value is the speculation that you can get something of intrinscic value in exchange. So money has the exchange value, which is fully speculative. So the if's and but's above is completely rational. If I can buy food tomorrow, what if I can not buy food tomorrow, possibly I can get only something that I don't fancy. Anywy, I speculate that I can get what I want tomorrow, therefore I keep some money for tomorrow, in stead of stuffing my refrigerator with something that can degrade, or what I maybe don't fancy tomorrow. Things with intrinsic value is good, but it depends on the circumstances, maybe what is valuable today is not so tomorrow. Therefore I keep something that is not directly useful, but pure value, for tomorrow.

I don't understand what you are talking about. If you mean that money has value since it has utility in allowing an individual to choose what to buy and what not to buy, today or tomorrow, this still fails the marginal utility test (since this value is also subjective). You will have to overcome this (which you evidently shrink from, despite my insistence), otherwise we should agree that this utility is not money's "intrinsic" value. You made a claim and the proof is on you..

And I'm not choosing other names, where did you get this?

Your words are nonsensical to me.

I remain entirely in the scope of the subjective value theory, and am using its terminology and notions. If you follow it too, then you have to deal with what I say (and not in the way you actually do). If you don't, then, I'm afraid, you have to explain your theory more clearly. I don't get it...

We don't have to consider why people choose, just that they do choose. By the way, you got the "intrinsic" word wrong, opposite, in fact. The title is "Re: Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it". Money is value, real value, pure value, just like the things you need to survive or just want to have, those with the intrinsic value. So even if the money does not have intrinsic value, it has value, real value, and we are not enslaved by it.

I said that I don't understand what you mean by money having "real" value. Instead of explaining it clearly, you are trying to hang on me using the word "intrinsic" incorrectly. As you might have noticed, I used it only once, and double quoted it at that. So now you have to explain to me how I got it wrong, it was your claim after all...

And you still didn't confess what economic school regarding value you adhere to (so as to avoid further confusion)