3 ms·

Survival/elementary civilizing skills on the whole are objectively more important than gold. If we could not draw water, produce food, bear/raise children, make

Survival/elementary civilizing skills on the whole are objectively more important than gold. If we could not draw water, produce food, bear/raise children, make clothing, build shelter, we would be much worse off than if we didn't have any gold. Disagreement over different skills worth relative to one another, disagreement over what plans to execute as a team etc. dissembles the individual skills' value compared with gold. People who can't agree where to put a bridge, what crops to plant, or whether or not to go to war will all want gold. The consensus about gold's value is a stronger component of gold's worth than its actual intrinsic value is. Imagine there's a person with a drill for wells and a person with a material amount of gold. If each walks into a town where people are dehydrated, the people of the town will hopefully be more excited to see the drill person than the gold person. If they each walk into 5 random towns, however, one would imagine the gold guy would have a more positive reception on average, because gold's beauty is independent of people's circumstances or culture, whereas the value of a well is very contingent on whether or not people want a new source of water. Historical royalty who did not want for anything were always happy to see more gold. Precious metals are one solution of the age old conundrum: "What gift do you get for the man who has everything?" This relatively inelastic desirability makes gold valuable for trade. As a proxy for human energy and people's resources, gold can solve many different problems that a drill cannot.

67726e 11y ago
Perhaps my cynicism, but wouldn't material goods with more utility be worth even more? I'm sure in a some End-of-Government scenario in which people would be in a barter economy, I would value things like food and water, tools, firearms, and ammunition a bit more than I would a shiny metal. Stephen Colbert made segment about gold, along with a mocking commercial asking folks to diversify their portfolio (with Women and Sheep...) but the idea that shiny metal holds value better than a magazine full of 5.56 and a rifle seems a little off. One can hunt or defend oneself with a rifle and ammunition, trade the ammunition to others, and even become a bandit. All gold does is allow one to trade. Hell, in the Metro book/video game series which takes place in a post-apocalyptic Moscow, the units of currency are military grade, pre apocalypse, ammo and, at a lesser value, post-apocalyptic ammo. Is there more to the notion that gold is valuable than "history" and "shiny"? [0] - http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ufq6qh/prescott-financial---gold--women---sheep http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ufq6qh/prescott-financ...
- lttlrck 11y ago
  All gold does is allow you to trade? That's sounds quite valuable if you are in need of a magazine and a rifle.
  - 67726e 11y ago
    My questions is why wouldn't something lime ammo be considered more valuable? In the US at least, you have fairly standard calibers, most rifles are going to be .308 or .223, and a couple others. A 30-round magazine of .223 carries much more value than a gold bar, so why would anyone value that brick more than that magazine of ammunition? Once you get into a scenario where you're having to barter for goods, you're not having an organized system of governance. I see some comments about fleeing wartorn for stable ones, but I'm asking in the context of an end-of-government type scenario.

67726e 11y ago

Perhaps my cynicism, but wouldn't material goods with more utility be worth even more? I'm sure in a some End-of-Government scenario in which people would be in a barter economy, I would value things like food and water, tools, firearms, and ammunition a bit more than I would a shiny metal. Stephen Colbert made segment about gold, along with a mocking commercial asking folks to diversify their portfolio (with Women and Sheep...) but the idea that shiny metal holds value better than a magazine full of 5.56 and a rifle seems a little off. One can hunt or defend oneself with a rifle and ammunition, trade the ammunition to others, and even become a bandit. All gold does is allow one to trade. Hell, in the Metro book/video game series which takes place in a post-apocalyptic Moscow, the units of currency are military grade, pre apocalypse, ammo and, at a lesser value, post-apocalyptic ammo. Is there more to the notion that gold is valuable than "history" and "shiny"? [0] - http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ufq6qh/prescott-financial---gold--women---sheep http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ufq6qh/prescott-financ...

lttlrck 11y ago
All gold does is allow you to trade? That's sounds quite valuable if you are in need of a magazine and a rifle.
- 67726e 11y ago
  My questions is why wouldn't something lime ammo be considered more valuable? In the US at least, you have fairly standard calibers, most rifles are going to be .308 or .223, and a couple others. A 30-round magazine of .223 carries much more value than a gold bar, so why would anyone value that brick more than that magazine of ammunition? Once you get into a scenario where you're having to barter for goods, you're not having an organized system of governance. I see some comments about fleeing wartorn for stable ones, but I'm asking in the context of an end-of-government type scenario.