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.
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.