Should civilization collapse to the point of law enforcement and electronic banking no longer functioning, I suspect gold in small denominations would be more useful than cash. You should also have acid handy to prove the authenticity of your gold and to test the authenticity of others’.
No one is going to use gold because it’s too valuable by weight and too difficult to measure tiny quantities. Instead, buy pre-1965 silver dimes. Silver is a much more reasonable price by weight.
Too valuable in the current economy to measure in small quantities, sure. But in a postapocalyptic wasteland, the economy will have shrunk drastically while the available quantity of gold stays the same. Hence, gold is the new silver and silver is the new tin.
Good point. I find it pretty hard to believe that people would start using gold instead of silver for casual transactions, but I suppose it’s possible.
Someone offers me a silver coin. Why should I give them something for it?
In a world where there are generally accepted forms of money, I can rely on that general acceptance to safeguard the value that I store as money. If civilisation falls, how do “pre-1965 silver dimes”, or anything else of little practical value, acquire that role?
If civilisation falls, how do “pre-1965 silver dimes”, or anything else of little practical value, acquire that role?
It’s simple; gold and silver are schelling points. They have been used as mediums of monetary exchange for literally thousands of years. Maybe if you’re in a malthusian scenario where people are starving in droves and the survivors are spending every available minute working to stay alive just a little longer, gold and silver won’t do you much good. But as long as any kind of economic surplus exists, it’s a pretty good bet that people will be willing to trade for gold and silver, if for no other reason than because they think that other people will also be willing to trade for gold and silver.
The tools to grow, hunt, or otherwise produce your own food might be more important than either gold or weapons. Collapse to that degree would likely also halt the infrastructure that gets food to grocery stores, etc. Said stores would empty quickly and there would be no more coming—and your canned emergency food won’t last that long unless it’s measured in tons and stored in a bunker.
Depending on the catastrophe the cash might become worthless. As for weapons, you may be restricted by carrying or transportation laws depending on your jurisdiction.
Weapons and cash.
Should civilization collapse to the point of law enforcement and electronic banking no longer functioning, I suspect gold in small denominations would be more useful than cash. You should also have acid handy to prove the authenticity of your gold and to test the authenticity of others’.
No one is going to use gold because it’s too valuable by weight and too difficult to measure tiny quantities. Instead, buy pre-1965 silver dimes. Silver is a much more reasonable price by weight.
Too valuable in the current economy to measure in small quantities, sure. But in a postapocalyptic wasteland, the economy will have shrunk drastically while the available quantity of gold stays the same. Hence, gold is the new silver and silver is the new tin.
An “apocalypse” like nuclear war is not particularly likely to kill off more than half the population, at most.
If a first-world country suffers a calamity in which half its population dies, it’ll lose nine-tenths of its economic output at least.
Good point. I find it pretty hard to believe that people would start using gold instead of silver for casual transactions, but I suppose it’s possible.
In a world where...
Someone offers me a silver coin. Why should I give them something for it?
In a world where there are generally accepted forms of money, I can rely on that general acceptance to safeguard the value that I store as money. If civilisation falls, how do “pre-1965 silver dimes”, or anything else of little practical value, acquire that role?
It’s simple; gold and silver are schelling points. They have been used as mediums of monetary exchange for literally thousands of years. Maybe if you’re in a malthusian scenario where people are starving in droves and the survivors are spending every available minute working to stay alive just a little longer, gold and silver won’t do you much good. But as long as any kind of economic surplus exists, it’s a pretty good bet that people will be willing to trade for gold and silver, if for no other reason than because they think that other people will also be willing to trade for gold and silver.
The “general acceptance” provides you with liquidity but it offers no guarantees at all about the value of your banknotes.
The tools to grow, hunt, or otherwise produce your own food might be more important than either gold or weapons. Collapse to that degree would likely also halt the infrastructure that gets food to grocery stores, etc. Said stores would empty quickly and there would be no more coming—and your canned emergency food won’t last that long unless it’s measured in tons and stored in a bunker.
Firearms are practically free. They retain the vast majority of their purchase value and generally increase in value at the rate of inflation.
Depending on the catastrophe the cash might become worthless. As for weapons, you may be restricted by carrying or transportation laws depending on your jurisdiction.