"The concept of money is a paradox. Money has no utility in its self. It is given utility because of its value. But its value is assessed based on its utility. To have one thing based on something else that is being based off the initial thing is ridicules. And if the utility that is being based off of is not the given utility but the innate utility, then the value of money is null."
-Some things in this may seem confusing. When I refer to the “innate utility”, I am referring to the natural usefulness of money as an object. My basis for money’s innate utility being worthless is that it cannot perform any function that is of help in everyday life (such as cutting wood). The only possible innate utility of money is as full for fire (if made of paper) or as a paper weight (if made of heavy material).-
7 years ago
10 Dec 2011 08:04 CET