Many people might consider it obvious but as far as I know, intrinsic value isn't a concept in modern economics. Whatever someone is willing to pay is what that thing is worth to that person, that's it.
“Intrinsic Value” is absolutely a thing in economics, and describes that the value of an asset is intrinsic or contained within the asset itself.
It’s not necessarily the same as economic value, but to say that it isn’t a concept sounds like the type of FUD that the article spreads.
Besides, it’s not as if it’s difficult to understand that, say, the economic value of food (or stocks in some business if you prefer) is something different from a currency. By focusing on whether “intrinsic value” is real or not is focusing on syntactics, without even considering the underlying argument. That makes it an incredibly poor rebuttal.
It mentions Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, but nothing in modern economics.
The only other thing I found for "intrinsic value" involved investors looking at the values of companies, but that's investing, not economics.
Of course it's impossible for me to prove a negative. Maybe you could respond with a link of your own, describing the role of intrinsic value in modern economic theory?
You keep focusing on the term “intrinsic value”, while ignoring the underlying argument. Is it that difficult to understand that the value of things such as food, real estate, stocks is something entirely different from a currency?
