The "gold has productive value" idea doesn't solve the Regression problem anyway, since production has no value in the last period. Heck, not even food would have value as everything ends anyway. Maybe the only thing that would have value in the last period is things that give pleasure.

But, all that to say, I don't think the Regression Theorem has much explanatory power for anything outside of very specific strategic scenarios, like a board game.

No, that just pushes the analysis back a step. The technology it's used in is also only valued subjectively.

Industrial uses make it less ideal as money. Otherwise iron would be the best money of all time. Guy Swan has a good explanation on this.

I read it the same way.

I don't know why people value cigarettes, but I don't, which means it must be subjective.

Josh tries to get at the "intrinsic value" concept by talking about ends and means.

There are some things people pretty much only want as a means of getting something else.

Usually, people say money fits in this category. Here's an article where Rothbard says it several different ways.

Then there are things that people actually want, like cigarettes. Cigarettes can be used as a means (prison currency), but they were created as an end in and of themselves. I think Josh's take is that money can't be used as an end, and so it needs to be tied to some "real" end.

That's where I think he's wrong. People can want anything as an end.