Then we are arguing about the semantics of the word, "value" then.  Fair enough, I accept your point that value is in the eye of the beholder.  Would you accept that a can of soup or an iron nail both have an 'inherent utility' then?  At a minimum, they are both products that have an intended use.  I suppose our disagreement can be summed up with a jar of peanut butter to a starving person who is allergic to peanuts.  The jar of peanut butter has no 'inherent utility' to the allergic person, and therefore no 'inherent value' from his *solitary* perspective.  The jar of peanut butter can only be used in trade with someone who can consume it safely, but to the *other* guy; the jar of peanut butter does, indeed, have an 'inherent utility' and therefore an 'inherent value' from his perspectives.  It is the second guy (and all the other second guys within a given sphere of trade) that imparts an 'inherent value' upon the jar of peanut butter; but the first guy is (presumedly) aware of the jar's 'inherent utility/value' to others, so it has very much the same value to himself.