NickGiambruno on Nostr: A common misconception says money also needs to have some industrial use for it to be ...
A common misconception says money also needs to have some industrial use for it to be good money.
However, that’s like saying a shoe must also be useful as a hammer to be a good shoe.
Many people incorrectly reason that Bitcoin can’t be a good money because it has no industrial or non-monetary utility.
However, industrial use is not needed to make something useful as money. Using something as money—i.e., to store and exchange value—is sufficient for it to be money.
The fact that gold has some industrial use doesn’t give it superior monetary properties. People value gold as money primarily because it’s the one physical commodity most resistant to debasement—not because it’s used in dentistry, electronics, or other industries.
On the contrary, I’d argue that gold’s relatively small industrial uses do not enhance its monetary characteristics. If they did, why aren’t metals with more industrial use—like copper or nickel—more desirable as money?
When it comes to money, I’m only interested in its ability to store and exchange value. I’m not interested in something whose value is hostage to the whims of ever-changing industrial conditions.
This is why industrial use is not a monetary benefit but, in fact, a potential detriment.
Gold would be an even better money without the variation in its supply and demand from its industrial uses, which are unrelated to its use as money.
However, that’s like saying a shoe must also be useful as a hammer to be a good shoe.
Many people incorrectly reason that Bitcoin can’t be a good money because it has no industrial or non-monetary utility.
However, industrial use is not needed to make something useful as money. Using something as money—i.e., to store and exchange value—is sufficient for it to be money.
The fact that gold has some industrial use doesn’t give it superior monetary properties. People value gold as money primarily because it’s the one physical commodity most resistant to debasement—not because it’s used in dentistry, electronics, or other industries.
On the contrary, I’d argue that gold’s relatively small industrial uses do not enhance its monetary characteristics. If they did, why aren’t metals with more industrial use—like copper or nickel—more desirable as money?
When it comes to money, I’m only interested in its ability to store and exchange value. I’m not interested in something whose value is hostage to the whims of ever-changing industrial conditions.
This is why industrial use is not a monetary benefit but, in fact, a potential detriment.
Gold would be an even better money without the variation in its supply and demand from its industrial uses, which are unrelated to its use as money.