>Money doesn't really have physical value, only speculative (you want it because you trust that someone else will want it in the future).
And because you need it to pay your taxes in it
>Shares in public companies don't really have physical value unless you own enough to change the management. Sure you 'own' that fraction of the company and their assets, but the managers of the company don't ever have to pay you out any of it. Almost all the value of a share for most people is in its speculative value.
Nowadays the price depends mainly on that yes, but dividends are a thing, and legally (which is the only thing that matters in finance anyway since private property is also only legally a thing) you own that slice of the company and its assets. The price and the value are different
>Art generally doesn't really have physical value, the value is almost entirely in the story that goes with any specific piece. This isn't just true of modern art, being part of the story of the Mona Lisa is much more important than the aesthetic experience of looking at it (they let plebs do that for free!).
And in the tax avoidance schemes it enables
>Education certainly isn't something with physical value. Sometimes it has utility value for what you can do with it, but more often it's just something that people want you to have because it distinguishes you from people who don't have it.
Now we are getting more interesting, what's the difference between physical value and utility value? What's the difference between social value (it will make me desireable) or personal value (it will make me happy) and "physical" value?
>Insurance doesn't have physical value, it's more the value of feeling safe, which is a meme.
Only if you don't understand probabilities and risk management. Also, good luck buying a house without life insurance
Things have value because we need them (inelastic part of the supply-demand curve), things have a price because we want them (elastic part of the supply-demand curve).
This is a particularly interesting thing to point out in this context - property ownership is a meme itself.
> Things have value because we need them (inelastic part of the supply-demand curve), things have a price because we want them (elastic part of the supply-demand curve).
Incidentally while it's an interesting distinction, I don't agree with your comment on need/value want/price. I value lots of things I don't need. Humans are creatures that value things, things that are valued are valuable.
> Only if you don't understand probabilities and risk management.
Yeah, you're probably right on that. I could maybe try to claim that probabilities and risk management are memes themselves...
It sounds like there is a disagreement on definition of "need". Perhaps yours is closer to "will physically die if not present", and the parent poster's is "somewhere on Maslow's hierarchy of needs".
It's basically mortgage protection insurance - This is a particular type of life assurance taken out for the term of the mortgage and designed to pay it off on the death of the borrower or joint borrower
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/...
I'm much more talking about things that have value only because people think they have value. That's mimetic value. These things are valuable because the meme of them being valuable has infected society.
Like money, or art, or education (except in narrow practical fields) or entertainment or a notional (but rarely practical) ownership claim on a company, or intellectual property,
None of those things would have any value at all if people didn't think of them as valuable, or treat them as valuable, or respect them.
Notably, a farm does not fall into this category. It is a physical asset that produces other physical assets; that's utility value, not mimetic value. You can eat its output for food or burn it for energy.
The more meta stuff is about how even physical and utility value assets are often partially acquired based on mimetic elements. So people pay more for a car that makes them feel like an international spy than they do for a car that gets them from A to B, so the meme of feeling like an international spy has increased the value of the simple physical asset.
Money doesn't really have physical value, only speculative (you want it because you trust that someone else will want it in the future).
Shares in public companies don't really have physical value unless you own enough to change the management. Sure you 'own' that fraction of the company and their assets, but the managers of the company don't ever have to pay you out any of it. Almost all the value of a share for most people is in its speculative value.
Art generally doesn't really have physical value, the value is almost entirely in the story that goes with any specific piece. This isn't just true of modern art, being part of the story of the Mona Lisa is much more important than the aesthetic experience of looking at it (they let plebs do that for free!).
Education certainly isn't something with physical value. Sometimes it has utility value for what you can do with it, but more often it's just something that people want you to have because it distinguishes you from people who don't have it.
Insurance doesn't have physical value, it's more the value of feeling safe, which is a meme.
Entertainment is almost entirely memes and people have been paying to listen to music or watch drama for millenia.
Even the stuff that we 'used to buy' that was physical, like a car actually has a huge segment of its value that was meme based. You can tell by watching what companies advertise for. They rarely advertise for utility, they advertise for meme value.
Certainly monuments like cathedrals, huge stone circles, shrines etc were memetic as well as physical, and humans spent a phenomenal amount of effort on those things.
A huge amount of stuff that people spend money on has been primarily mimetic going back into prehistory.