3 ms·

Not to sound hyperbolic but I feel once the US Dollar crashes entirely to the degree that it no longer serves as a "default currency" of sorts, that society wil

Not to sound hyperbolic but I feel once the US Dollar crashes entirely to the degree that it no longer serves as a "default currency" of sorts, that society will have broken down far enough that even the gold will be relatively worthless and the predominant goods of choice will be cans of dog food and beans.

bluGill 3y ago
For a year you will be correct. However after a year what is left will start to rebuild, and gold works better than beans (remember the cans are all eaten by now - we are talking beans someone actually grew). The problem with beans is they spoil (even carefully stored): eventually someone says "I have all the beans I need now, but I still want to sell my shoes". Using something like gold as an agreed medium of exchanges means the bean grower and shoe maker can make an exchange without trying to put together a complex trade involving a dozen people just to get enough of various goods to satisfy the show maker. Instead the shoemaker can get some gold and then buy everything as an individual transaction - and the people he buys from can in turn go to the bean grower if they want beans.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Or instead of gold they can just trade the empty cans and if you happen to have enough of a functioning society they can also just trade on debt (see Tallysticks [1]). Investing in gold as a hedge for the collapse of society is imo a really piss-poor idea. Either invest in stuff you can use (i.e. food) or stuff that will be demand (Ham radios, firearms). Gold is just not going to be the future medium of currency there isn't enough of it in practical sized values. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money#Overview
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Gold - because it is pretty - will always have some value. Ham radio is only useful if you can power it and find someone else with one who can also power it, my guess not enough people will have them to be useful. firearms are only useful if you have ammo - while you can make bullets and black power it is hard to say if it is worth it. I doubt there will be much firearm trade unless there is an ammo manufacturing (no longer society collapse - though a much more likely scenereo) - people who have ammo will keep the guns that go with it. I'm not disagreeing that there are plenty of things other than gold to hold onto. However gold is still a reasonable choice for post disaster trade for the same reasons society settled on it in the first place. (note that society also used copper and silver for trade)
- GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
  The price of gold is only relative to the dollar. We don't spend money in the current economy with ounces of gold. We do know how much stuff should roughly cost in US dollars (or local currency). So if I go to the barber, I'll get a hair cut on credit, to be paid later by either direct barter or from credit that I paid someone else. Roman currency (both the coinage and the numeric value promixal to goods) lasted for years after the empire fell. It was just easier to use that relative value, and rely on local credit
throwaway2203 3y ago
At that point the guys with guns take what they want so nothing you have is worth anything any more.
dukeyukey 3y ago
It's possible another power will peacefully take that place, kinda like how the US Dollar usurped the British Pound without a war between those countries.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The pound wasn’t really displaced peacefully (WWII being rather the polar opposite of peace), even though the replacement happened to be from a friendly power.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    Compared to > "society will have broken down far enough that even the gold will be relatively worthless and the predominant goods of choice will be cans of dog food and beans. it absolutely was peaceful, especially in those two countries.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      WW2 and the period just after wherein the British Empire experienced rapid disassembly—the context for the collapse also of the Pound Sterling as the primary global currency—were not a period that was “absolutely peaceful” in the USA and the British Empire, or the world in general. Again, yes, it was peaceful BETWEEN the US ans UK, but your thesis that the primary global currency can collapse peacefully without a catastrophic global crisis is... well, picking the transition of the Pound to make that point is not a choice I would have gone with.

bluGill 3y ago

For a year you will be correct. However after a year what is left will start to rebuild, and gold works better than beans (remember the cans are all eaten by now - we are talking beans someone actually grew). The problem with beans is they spoil (even carefully stored): eventually someone says "I have all the beans I need now, but I still want to sell my shoes". Using something like gold as an agreed medium of exchanges means the bean grower and shoe maker can make an exchange without trying to put together a complex trade involving a dozen people just to get enough of various goods to satisfy the show maker. Instead the shoemaker can get some gold and then buy everything as an individual transaction - and the people he buys from can in turn go to the bean grower if they want beans.

lesuorac 3y ago
Or instead of gold they can just trade the empty cans and if you happen to have enough of a functioning society they can also just trade on debt (see Tallysticks [1]). Investing in gold as a hedge for the collapse of society is imo a really piss-poor idea. Either invest in stuff you can use (i.e. food) or stuff that will be demand (Ham radios, firearms). Gold is just not going to be the future medium of currency there isn't enough of it in practical sized values. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money#Overview
- bluGill 3y ago
  Gold - because it is pretty - will always have some value. Ham radio is only useful if you can power it and find someone else with one who can also power it, my guess not enough people will have them to be useful. firearms are only useful if you have ammo - while you can make bullets and black power it is hard to say if it is worth it. I doubt there will be much firearm trade unless there is an ammo manufacturing (no longer society collapse - though a much more likely scenereo) - people who have ammo will keep the guns that go with it. I'm not disagreeing that there are plenty of things other than gold to hold onto. However gold is still a reasonable choice for post disaster trade for the same reasons society settled on it in the first place. (note that society also used copper and silver for trade)
GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
The price of gold is only relative to the dollar. We don't spend money in the current economy with ounces of gold. We do know how much stuff should roughly cost in US dollars (or local currency). So if I go to the barber, I'll get a hair cut on credit, to be paid later by either direct barter or from credit that I paid someone else. Roman currency (both the coinage and the numeric value promixal to goods) lasted for years after the empire fell. It was just easier to use that relative value, and rely on local credit

throwaway2203 3y ago

At that point the guys with guns take what they want so nothing you have is worth anything any more.

dukeyukey 3y ago

It's possible another power will peacefully take that place, kinda like how the US Dollar usurped the British Pound without a war between those countries.

dragonwriter 3y ago
The pound wasn’t really displaced peacefully (WWII being rather the polar opposite of peace), even though the replacement happened to be from a friendly power.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  Compared to > "society will have broken down far enough that even the gold will be relatively worthless and the predominant goods of choice will be cans of dog food and beans. it absolutely was peaceful, especially in those two countries.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    WW2 and the period just after wherein the British Empire experienced rapid disassembly—the context for the collapse also of the Pound Sterling as the primary global currency—were not a period that was “absolutely peaceful” in the USA and the British Empire, or the world in general. Again, yes, it was peaceful BETWEEN the US ans UK, but your thesis that the primary global currency can collapse peacefully without a catastrophic global crisis is... well, picking the transition of the Pound to make that point is not a choice I would have gone with.