About 100 years ago, economists tried to discover what determines the price of an object. Some said there was something about the object, maybe the amount of labor put into creating it, that gave it its value. They called it the object’s intrinsic value.
AE asserts there is no such thing. The value of an object, and thus the price one is willing to pay for it, is subjective. That’s why you will hear that there iis no such thing as intrinsic value.
Another discussion that arose was about gives money value. Clearly fiat money and commodity money [like gold] are different somehow. Fiat money gets its value cause you can use it to buy stuff. When gold is money, it has that value [you can use it to buy stuff], but another component of value as well. You can make jewelry with it. You can use it in some industrial things. This additional value, as explained in the Mises article I linked to earlier, was called “industrial demand” by Mises, but later economists started giving it the name of “intrinsic value”. But they certainly did not mean that gold when used as money has the other kind of intrinsic value, the one used in contrast to subjective value.