
>""All money is virtual, a concept that too few people understand." && "Each one is worth exactly the value that 'the market' is ready to give it." == nonsense
>As you so rightly said yourself: "Although having a private company issue their own currency is a whole new can of worms..."
>If it's != nonsense then your last sentence would not make sense. So which is it? Does it have an intrinsic value, or not? :)"
Uh... no, it is not nonsense - none of those quotes state that any money has an intrinisc value. In fact, all of them state or imply that there is no intrinsic value, which is _especially_ true of a "virtual" currency. So, what part of the last sentence does not make sense?
Physical money _can_ have an intrinsic value - I can fold my paper bills into airplanes or wipe my @ss, but the one using a $100 bill is worth as much as the one using a $1 bill, intrinsically. However, it is never in a central bank's (or gov'ment's) best interest for its currency to have any intrinsic value. WWI saw pennies worth more than a penny because of copper shortage, and the gov'ment lost true value. The "value" we place on physical or virtual money _is in exchange for goods or services_, and is based on the amount of money in the system (ie. fiat currency)... In a "market" controlled by the central banks.
We already have a can of worms as the central banks (ie. the Federal Reserve Bank) _is_ a private company... And we see all the time what happens when the sharks in the pond think someone else is getting any fish...