4 ms·
1) is about whether the asset itself generates any benefit to the holder. The cleaner example has nothing to do with that.
by H8crilA 5y ago
1) is about whether the asset itself generates any benefit to the holder. The cleaner example has nothing to do with that.
- neom 5y agoIsn't being able to have a clean house direct utility? Or the asset itself must have intrinsic value? (house can be lived in, gold can be used for electricity/nice things etc?)
- H8crilA 5y agoI'm talking about the asset itself. You've just sold it for labor instead of currency.
- ashwagary 5y agoThere is an argument that 'good money' should have no utility value outside of being money. Gold and silver having a utility premium actually make them 'bad money' according to this same argument.
- H8crilA 5y agoYes and (non backed) currency experiences slow but exponential decline in value, even if you augment it with the short rate (tbills in the US), always going to 0. It's still used to settle transactions. All checks out.
- ashwagary 5y agoAnother part of the argument is 'good money' should not to be easy to debase. This is where 100% of Fiat currencies fail and Bitcoin succeeds.