In this second installment to my Heal the Bern series -- explaining sound economics in everyday language -- I address a centuries-old argument, that one of the conditions necessary for an asset to be a valuable currency is "intrinsic value."
The idea of intrinsic value is that the substance used as a currency, gold for instance, is valuable because of its natural properties. Gold has some industrial uses, such as being an excellent conductor of electricity. Some argue that this is the origin of its value as a currency.
I contend that the value of gold is not based on its industrial uses, and that any asset can either be intrinsically valuable, or valuable as a currency, but never both at the same time. I discuss how this is also the case with salt and cigarettes, both of which are/have been used as currencies.
As always, feedback is welcome! I look forward to hearing your responses and any thoughts this may have triggered for you. :) Thanks for watching!