A Thought Exercise About Value

Re-reading “Debt: The First 5,000 Years” by David Graeber reminded me that many things we think of as “real” are just human constructs. How money actually works and how people interact with it isn’t as straight forward as everyone thinks it is. And what we as a society ascribe “value” to isn’t immutable. It’s a social contract that can change if enough people want it to.

And today’s news seems to be obsessed with topics that touch on but don’t explain what money is and why new “things of value” are emerging. Governments around the world are printing money. Bitcoin is emerging as a global reserve currency. Memecoins and Memestocks are achieving and sustaining valuations that shock and awe the TradFi establishment.

With Graeber whispering in my ear and real-world developments catching my eye, I find myself in a philosophical mindset where I’m asking myself a host of fundamental questions about “value”. So if you’re interested, feel free to read on and traverse a thought exercise with me. If not, I totally understand. This isn’t for everyone.

Thought Exercise About Value

Ask yourself:

Is it possible for a thing with no intrinsic value to be worth more than the thing of value that it represents?

My viewpoint:

Consider money. Once tethered to gold in vaults, it has evolved into an almost entirely conceptual construct – numbers flowing through digital spaces, backed by nothing but collective belief and agreement. Yet this abstraction has become more powerful than the physical goods it represents. It can be transferred instantly across the globe, divided infinitely, and used to represent everything from future promises to complex financial instruments.

And at its core, the history of money is a story of collective belief, with periods of stability and periods where everything changes. For instance, in 1971, Richard Nixon shocked the global financial system by decoupling the US dollar from gold which transformed money from a tangible, precious-metal-backed instrument to a pure abstraction backed only by the US Government’s promise and collective faith. This watershed moment blew many people’s minds by revealing an uncomfortable truism: Money is less a physical commodity and more an expression of value that only exists because we collectively agree it does.

But what if the collective decides to change what it values? What if the collective faith rethinks what was deemed “valuable” in the past and decides it’s no longer true.

As a tangible example, what if society simply decided that diamond rings are no longer valid symbols of romantic commitment? This seemingly simple act of collective reimagining could instantaneously liberate billions of dollars annually from the marriage economy and completely upend the “value” of more than a billion rings globally. Diamond engagement rings are pretty. They’re rare. They shine. But the truth is that these glittering tokens represent nothing more than a social construct with zero intrinsic economic utility when trapped in ring form. A diamond ring’s value exists purely because we collectively agree it exists, and just as quickly that agreement can be withdrawn.

We’re witnessing another profound transformation with Bitcoin, a digital currency that challenges traditional notions of monetary value. Unlike fiat currencies controlled by central banks, Bitcoin represents a decentralized store of value, deriving its worth from mathematical scarcity, technological trust, and global consensus rather than governmental decree.

Human societies consistently demonstrate an extraordinary ability to create, modify, and reimagine constructs of value which is a form of proof that money is not a fixed reality, but rather a fluid, evolving concept shaped by our collective imagination.

So if we return to the question of whether it’s possible for a thing with no intrinsic value to be worth more than the thing of value that it represents I think the answer is “yes”.

Consider this paradox:

A retail company called GameStop exists in the physical world. It has tangible assets: stores filled with inventory, warehouses, cash in the bank, and employees who come to work each day. It generates real revenue from selling actual products. Traditional finance tells us this company’s value should be based on its ability to generate future cash flows, its assets, its market position, and its growth potential.

Now imagine a digital token called GME that represents the IDEA of the company and its history but exists purely as an abstract concept. This token has no intrinsic value. It cannot generate revenue. It has no employees. It sells no products. It is, in the most literal sense, nothing more than an idea that people can trade.

Yet this theoretical token, a digital shadow of the real company, could command a higher market value than the actual business it represents. Why? Because while the real company is constrained by the physical limitations of retail space, inventory management, and the need to generate profits, the token trades purely in the realm of belief and narrative.

So the operative question to ask is why would people part with money that has true buying power to hold something that’s purely a representation of a concept? Maybe to be part of a movement that’s one part nihilism and two parts theater of the absurd. Maybe as a nod to history and a way to hold a pure version of “the thing” that made everyone re-think what the power of the collective masses could accomplish. Maybe as a way of having fun while chasing unlimited financial upside.

Think of it like Plato’s cave allegory in reverse: What if the shadows on the wall, freed from the constraints of the physical objects casting them, could grow larger and more valuable than their sources? The token, unburdened by the need to deliver quarterly earnings or maintain profit margins, can be valued purely on collective belief, community momentum, and shared narrative. If enough people believe in it’s value, these same people have the ability to maintain its value through sheer HODLing. Supply/demand economic theory will take care of the rest.

This raises uncomfortable questions about the nature of value itself. If a valueless token can become more valuable than what it represents, what does that tell us about our entire system of assigning worth? Perhaps value has always been more about our shared beliefs than any intrinsic quality – the token just makes this truth more explicit.

This thought exercise is not meant to diminish the importance of the real. The real is important. Productive activities matter. Selling goods and services for more than they cost to manufacture and distribute is how companies and economies thrive. But in the space between the thing itself and our conception of it, something magical can happen. There will be times when the unreal will surpass the real.