> This doesn’t exist except in the imagination. It has no causal bearing on any economic process except through the influence it has on the person imagining it.
No, it exists in math, with addition and subtraction. Like I said, a publicly traded bank account like a SPAC has an intrinsic value equal to its cash on hand. This is the economic definition of intrinsic value, and you're trying to once again substitute your epistemological definition. Same word, different meanings in different contexts, and it's disingenuous to try and substitute your definition as though it's the commonly accepted one in this context.
> So does EUR with respect to USD
This does not follow. Money isn't an asset, it's a currency, and a foreign exchange trade is a pair trade on the relative domestic purchasing power of the two. Currencies do not float with respect to other currencies because they are not priced in terms of each other.
> Scarcity, fungibility, liquidity, durability, portability - gold’s 5/5 and real estate is 4.5/5. What properties are you thinking about?
Ok let's talk about real estate. It's not fungible, each house is different. It's not liquid, in fact, sales take a substantial period of time. It's not necessarily durable, it decays without constant upkeep. It's totally not portable. And it's not broadly accepted as money. That's 0. Try bringing your deed to the Apple store to buy a MacBook. How is that 4.5 out of 5?
Gold of course isn't broadly accepted either, so that's a critical one. Try bringing a gold brick to the Apple store and see if you can buy an iPhone. Yes it could be money, it was at some point, but we replaced it because it was bad at being money, and these days it definitely is not.
> No, it exists in math, with addition and subtraction.
I’m sure you can imagine a formula. If you’d like to share a particular formula that works for determining the “intrinsic value” of any arbitrary asset I can explain why it’s wrong or meaningless.
> This does not follow
EUR literally floats wrt USD. There is no coherent way to disagree with this.
> Currencies do not float with respect to other currencies because they are not priced in terms of each other.
Yes they are, any time someone does an FX trade.
> Ok let's talk about real estate.
Typo, meant 3.5/5. Durable - yes, it persists better over arbitrary timescales than the dollar, especially raw land. Scarce - yes. Fungible - 0.5. Liquid - long settlement times don’t mean illiquid (although I probably should apply a penalty here) - yes. Portable - 0. I think you meant “1” since you didn’t disagree with scarcity.
> Try bringing your deed to the Apple store to buy a MacBook… Try bringing a gold brick to the Apple store and see if you can buy an iPhone
Try bringing EUR to a US Apple store.
> we replaced it because it was bad at being money
Do you really think that’s why Nixon suspended gold convertibility? That’s a… very charitable explanation
> I’m sure you can imagine a formula. If you’d like to share a particular formula that works for determining the “intrinsic value” of any arbitrary asset I can explain why it’s wrong or meaningless.
Sure. Net of assets minus liabilities. Book value.
> EUR literally floats wrt USD. There is no coherent way to disagree with this.
They both change value with respect to eachother but neither is priced in the other. Goods in the US are priced in dollars. Goods in Europe are priced in Euros. Euros are not priced in dollars, and dollars are not priced in euros. They're independent and exchangeable at a market rate based on relative purchasing power and demand.
The price of a euro is not determined by the dollar - although a rate of exchange exists. The price of an apple in the US is determined by the dollar. The price of a dollar isn't determined by the euro. The price of an apple in the EU is determined by the euro. I'm sure there's a name for this.
> Yes they are, any time someone does an FX trade.
I see what you mean, and yes the rate of exchange floats.
> I think you meant “1” since you didn’t disagree with scarcity.
It's not scarce, you can just build up. We impose artificial scarcity with zoning considerations, but it's not inherently scarce.
> Try bringing EUR to a US Apple store.
Why would I do that? I don't live in Europe, I don't participate in the European economy. I can exchange one for the other, or have Visa do it free of charge, as they participate in both. Currencies only apply within their boundaries of acceptance. The euro is not a currency in America which is kind of the point I'm making about acceptance. It's a currency somewhere but real estate is a currency nowhere like gold.
So given it carries few (or IMO very few) attributes of money and is not used as money anywhere and its price fluctuates with respect to a currency, it's not a monetary asset. It's not monetized. It's totally independent.
> Do you really think that’s why Nixon suspended gold convertibility? That’s a… very charitable explanation
I don't really care why we got where we got - the result is better. FDR really took the US off the gold standard in 1933 - following the UK ending the gold standard in 1931 "abruptly and unilaterally." [1] Nixon simply killed off the last vestiges.
Uh huh… and how do you calculate the values of these subterms? You told me you could calculate a number, not an expression with free variables doing all the work.
> It's not scarce, you can just build up.
Building land is not cost effective. Economists say land has an “essentially fixed supply”, cf analysis of Georgism.
> It's a currency somewhere but real estate is a currency nowhere like gold.
Bitcoin is a currency in El Salvador. More to come.
> I don't really care why we got where we got - the result is better
No, it exists in math, with addition and subtraction. Like I said, a publicly traded bank account like a SPAC has an intrinsic value equal to its cash on hand. This is the economic definition of intrinsic value, and you're trying to once again substitute your epistemological definition. Same word, different meanings in different contexts, and it's disingenuous to try and substitute your definition as though it's the commonly accepted one in this context.
> So does EUR with respect to USD
This does not follow. Money isn't an asset, it's a currency, and a foreign exchange trade is a pair trade on the relative domestic purchasing power of the two. Currencies do not float with respect to other currencies because they are not priced in terms of each other.
> Scarcity, fungibility, liquidity, durability, portability - gold’s 5/5 and real estate is 4.5/5. What properties are you thinking about?
Ok let's talk about real estate. It's not fungible, each house is different. It's not liquid, in fact, sales take a substantial period of time. It's not necessarily durable, it decays without constant upkeep. It's totally not portable. And it's not broadly accepted as money. That's 0. Try bringing your deed to the Apple store to buy a MacBook. How is that 4.5 out of 5?
Gold of course isn't broadly accepted either, so that's a critical one. Try bringing a gold brick to the Apple store and see if you can buy an iPhone. Yes it could be money, it was at some point, but we replaced it because it was bad at being money, and these days it definitely is not.