I find it highly ironic that the crowd which blasts the dollar for being valued far in excess of its intrinsic worth is the same crowd that champions gold and silver, two metals (especially gold) that are valued grossly in excess of their intrinsic worth. The industrial demand for gold take alone would place its price at only a fraction of a fraction of where it currently is, and the same goes for silver (which is why it's historically traded around the $5 mark, except when bandwagons form).
There is no such thing as 'intrinsic worth'. All value is a subjective calculation. Gold is worth what someone will trade for it. The same thing is true about steel, mercury, salt or real estate.
And fiat currencies, but that item is conveniently always left off the list.
In fact, as ansible adams point out, fiat currencies seem to be the value store of choice for all major corporations and, quite frankly, nearly everyone else as well. Why is that, given that you're claiming gold and silver are the most stable stores of value?
And just FYI, when people refer to intrinsic value they're not talking about some magical, a priori worth; they're referring to the item's actually usefulness as a life-sustaining commodity. Paper dollars can be used to start a fire, so that's some small amount of intrinsic value. Gold can be used for... well not much of anything outside of advanced industry.