I used the money analogy because it has a convenient idea of value.
While debating about the use of that analogy, I had already considered it ironic that the US dollar hasn’t had “objective” value since it was disconnected from the value of gold in 1933. Not that gold has objective value unless you use it to make a conductor. But at the level, I start losing track of what I mean by ‘value’. Anyway, it is interesting that the value of the US dollar is exactly an example of humans creating value, echoing Alicorn’s comment.
Real money does have objective value relative to the party, since you can buy things on your way home, but no objective value outside contexts where the money can be exchanged for goods.
I used the money analogy because it has a convenient idea of value.
While debating about the use of that analogy, I had already considered it ironic that the US dollar hasn’t had “objective” value since it was disconnected from the value of gold in 1933. Not that gold has objective value unless you use it to make a conductor. But at the level, I start losing track of what I mean by ‘value’. Anyway, it is interesting that the value of the US dollar is exactly an example of humans creating value, echoing Alicorn’s comment.
Real money does have objective value relative to the party, since you can buy things on your way home, but no objective value outside contexts where the money can be exchanged for goods.