Does "intrinsic value" as a concept really even make sense in these discussions? What does it add?
Water has immense intrinsic value but a glass is for practical purposes free. Same for a cup of wheat. Diamonds and gold don't have intrinsic value and they're expensive. Hollywood films have no intrinsic value, but it's a multi-billion dollar industry. Paint thrown on a canvas from the right artist has zero intrinsic value but sells for as much as thousands of acres of useful farmland.
Is Bailey saying we should base our monetary system around water and wheat since they have intrinsic value. Of course not. What's even the use of pointing of if something have intrinsic value or not? How can smart people like this be so stupid, or is he just being intentionally dishonest to try to dissuade people from looking at alternatives as they lose confidence in the central banking pyramid scheme he's running?
I hate to break it to you, Andy, but pretty much all fiat currencies are like that.