That's not intrinsic value though. Fiat currency by definition has no intrinsic value. Fiat literally means "let it be done", i.e. it is given value by a decree and not because of its intrinsic value.

You have to pay taxes in USD. Not being thrown in jail is value... maybe not intrinsic though.

USD in paper form can also be burned for warmth, or used to write on. In coin form, it has the same intrinsic value as the metal.

I think you would agree that the intrinsic value of dollars as backed by the metal in USD coins is negligible compared to how many USD exist, because nobody has them in substantial amounts (due to being impractical). The value of the paper that the dollars are printed on is also negligible compared to the value of the bills themselves, let alone all the USD that exist (as you probably know, the vast majority of which don't actually exist as bills or coins).

Besides, everything you said, including tax payment and keeping out of jail, also applies to the Venezuelan bolivar and quite a few other fiat currencies that completely crashed in value due to hyper-inflation.

So I don't think those are good arguments for the USD being valuable or having substantial intrinsic value.

> I think you would agree that the intrinsic value of dollars as backed by the metal in USD coins is negligible compared to how many USD exist...

Yes, I agree.

> Besides, everything you said, including tax payment and keeping out of jail, also applies to the Venezuelan bolivar and quite a few other fiat currencies that completely crashed in value due to hyper-inflation.

USD will always be valuable as long as the US government exists and taxes its citizens in USD. This means that there will always be demand for USD (again, as long as the US government exists).

I don't think it's wrong to say that the US government is more stable than the other governments that print currencies that are less stable.

> USD will always be valuable as long as the US government exists and taxes its citizens in USD. This means that there will always be demand for USD (again, as long as the US government exists).

For the USD to have value, you need technological innovation and productivity. You need to export more value than you import.

Simply existing and taxing your population does not give your currency value.

Indeed the fact that you have to pay taxes in USD is not intrinsic value, that is actually what makes it fiat (That is the decree by which it is given value)

However the flammability is a good example of intrinsic value

There's no such thing as "intrinsic" value. Value is determined by humans depending on the context.

While that's true, if we take certain basic human values to be universal for the sake of discussion, it's not unreasonable to say that a loaf of bread has intrinsic value in a way that a dollar clearly does not.

What’s the basis for the distinction or that choice of word? Why not just say bread is more widely valued than a the dollar?

There are also many, many situations where I’d rather have dollars than bread.

Bread isn't necessarily more widely valued than a dollar. Bread has more functional/useful value than a dollar. A dollar only has value if you can exchange it for something else

It doesn't sound like you are arguing for intrinsic value, but I'm not sure. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying.

Although I think we should mention that one can write a sentence for bread that is very similar to the one you gave for dollars. Bread only has value if you are hungry and don't have other more preferable food sources.

Sure, but when you are hungry then that intrinsic value is expressed for you. But there's no situation in which cash is useful except for exchanging.

What's special about "being hungry with no better alternatives" versus "being able to exchange with others who use the same money as me?""

I don't understand what specifically makes some kind of value "intrinsic" under your model.

"An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end, or in Kantian terminology, as an end-in-itself."

"In philosophy and ethics, an end, or telos, is the ultimate goal in a series of steps. For example, according to Aristotle the end of everything we do is happiness. It is contrasted to a means, which is something that helps you achieve that goal. For example, money or power may be said to be a means to the end of happiness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28ethics%29

Fiat currency and bitcoin, and to some extent gold, are not an end-in-themselves but just a means to acquire something which is actually useful to you. They are not in and of themselves useful to anybody.

Food is just a means to sustain my metabolic processes and create pleasant sensations. It isn't an end-in-itself.

If those goals were satisfied through other means, whether by using bio-engineering to modify my physiology or through some other process, would bread no longer have intrinsic value?

This seems uselessly contrarian. Just because there are some philosophical edge cases/open questions about how we identify intrinsic versus extrinsic value doesn't change the fact that today, for human beings, the most useful and practical definition is one in which paper bills don't have intrinsic value but bread does.

I’m just trying to get at the heart of things. I am not trying to be difficult. I honestly don’t find the concept of intrinsic value to be useful or compelling.

What are some examples beyond bread that meet your criteria of intrinsically valuable?

How do you determine if something is an “end-in-itself”? I find it difficult to definitively attribute that label to anything.

Fair enough... I am not sure how to precisely describe my interpretation of "end-in-itself". But here are some more things I would consider to have intrinsic value: Other food, clothes, fuel/oil/gas, building materials, consumer goods, etc. Some things like gold have some intrinsic value (for jewellry and electronics) and some extrinsic value (demand just for investments). You might say cash has some intrinsic value since it can be burned or melted down (but it's barely anything compared to the extrinsic value). Then you have bitcoin which literally has no intrinsic value at all, only extrinsic value.

As a means of trade, yes, they are powerful because they are widely trusted and preferred.

However once you have them, you get rid of them. Good assets don't lose value over time. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032048/value-us-dollar-...

Good assets also don't get stolen if 51% of the network becomes compromised by a bad actor.

Hm? Stolen assets you say?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_Unit...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_austerity_packages

A 51% attack doesn’t let the bad actor steal someone else’s coins. It lets them reverse and double spend their own spending. They can’t directly steal coins. The flexibility of open source software gives opportunities to mitigate such an event, should it happen.