4 ms·

I mean, in world where you’re trying to trade gold for food gold is a “fiat” currency as well. It has no intrinsic value and if we’re struggling to get food an

I mean, in world where you’re trying to trade gold for food gold is a “fiat” currency as well. It has no intrinsic value and if we’re struggling to get food and water I’m not going to want to accept anything for my food except strict bartering. If you’re buying gold for the end of the world you’d be better off buying cigarettes and tiny bottles of booze.

wutbrodo 6y ago
Shotgun shells and cans of beans
devalgo 6y ago
Not sure that makes sense? Gold's value was typically based on scarcity and it's multi-millennial status as a thing of value? Why else would much of the world have based their currency on gold itself?
thephyber 6y ago
Gold isn't a "fiat" currency. It's a commodity that acts as a store of value. A fiat is paper which is asserted to have a specific value (likely unenforceable in a post-apocalyptic world). A commodity has a value because that's what the market will bear. Gold does have intrinsic value. It's used for electronics plating and for jewelry. Other precious metals can augment gold as commodities, each having different intrinsic values. An example of a metal which might have no intrinsic value in a post-apocalyptic world is platinum or palladium, which are primarily used as catalysts for emissions equipment on cars (no refined petrol => no driving => no need for platinum/palladium). I think the statement about cigarettes and booze is correct (as well as toilet paper and ammo), except they have different lifespans and durabilities. Also, consumables will get more rare as time goes on (like dollar bills that erode, tear, burn, or are lost), whereas precious metals may keep in-tact.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Would a post-apocalyptic world really care about electrical conductors and crafting new jewelry, though? It feels like everyone is making assumptions about what people would want in such a world.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    I'll be the first to admit that it's a contrived model because 95% of people would perish quickly if we lost all energy and food supply chain. But if anyone survives, soon after hoarding the immediate needs (air, water, food, security, shelter) will eventually convert to specialized jobs, which is when bartering is less useful than a standardized currency. But the idea that gold doesn't have some sort of special status is strange to me. People don't talk about doorknobs or topaz when they diversify from financial products (stocks, bonds, cash, etc). Cryptocurrency fails to be useful if there is no reliable electrical grid or network. Gold has for long recent history (until about WW1) backed almost all currencies, so it has significant precedence. And jewelry is useless to me, but most people carry some form of jewelry and some cultures even store lots of gold in jewelry in case they need to run/escape. It's not useless to have a store of value shaped to fit your body.

wutbrodo 6y ago

Shotgun shells and cans of beans

devalgo 6y ago

Not sure that makes sense? Gold's value was typically based on scarcity and it's multi-millennial status as a thing of value? Why else would much of the world have based their currency on gold itself?

thephyber 6y ago

Gold isn't a "fiat" currency. It's a commodity that acts as a store of value. A fiat is paper which is asserted to have a specific value (likely unenforceable in a post-apocalyptic world). A commodity has a value because that's what the market will bear. Gold does have intrinsic value. It's used for electronics plating and for jewelry. Other precious metals can augment gold as commodities, each having different intrinsic values. An example of a metal which might have no intrinsic value in a post-apocalyptic world is platinum or palladium, which are primarily used as catalysts for emissions equipment on cars (no refined petrol => no driving => no need for platinum/palladium). I think the statement about cigarettes and booze is correct (as well as toilet paper and ammo), except they have different lifespans and durabilities. Also, consumables will get more rare as time goes on (like dollar bills that erode, tear, burn, or are lost), whereas precious metals may keep in-tact.

Apocryphon 6y ago
Would a post-apocalyptic world really care about electrical conductors and crafting new jewelry, though? It feels like everyone is making assumptions about what people would want in such a world.
- thephyber 6y ago
  I'll be the first to admit that it's a contrived model because 95% of people would perish quickly if we lost all energy and food supply chain. But if anyone survives, soon after hoarding the immediate needs (air, water, food, security, shelter) will eventually convert to specialized jobs, which is when bartering is less useful than a standardized currency. But the idea that gold doesn't have some sort of special status is strange to me. People don't talk about doorknobs or topaz when they diversify from financial products (stocks, bonds, cash, etc). Cryptocurrency fails to be useful if there is no reliable electrical grid or network. Gold has for long recent history (until about WW1) backed almost all currencies, so it has significant precedence. And jewelry is useless to me, but most people carry some form of jewelry and some cultures even store lots of gold in jewelry in case they need to run/escape. It's not useless to have a store of value shaped to fit your body.