I can see the point of your question, tho... if, say, civilization collapsed to the point of a strictly barter society (say, a series of high intensity EMP events), where the price of getting your horse re-shoed was 2 chickens and a kilo of cheese - or similarly, there was a premium on Lead, Charcoal, Sulfur, and Saltpeter, then a wiser investment might be iron or lead (or sulfur and niter)...
It depends how far society collapses as well. How many intercontinental sailing ships (wind-only power) are there, how many horses and wagons, who has the technological skill to keep them traveling? Heck, how many people can get a crew together to cut down 5-10 acres of --appropriate-- oakwood, redwood (or pine) and hickory (not all trees are good for shipwrighting or wheel building) and even have the skills - let alone real, usable working tools - to build something like a sailing ship - without the aid of ANY power tools?
In the 1700's? Sure. In the 2100's? Probably not likely. And travel is the basis of trade currencies like silver and gold, and even then - it's an implied and agreed-upon value, not a value of necessity.
Maybe the wise person would do well to stock up on coal. Four chickens, 3 loaves, and a kilo of cheese? That'll be a pound and a half of lead, 3 of iron, and a 1/4 sack of anthracite. You want to put it on your Lead Master Card today?
Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
He asked if it would help to have it, assuming you could have it. It only has economic value if someone is willing to accept it in exchange for what you want that he has. If the major economies of the world literally collapsed including the technology infrastructure, that would be very limited, beginning with the stage of primitive barter let alone acceptance of gold or any other currency. For many it would not be survivable with or without gold or any commodity worth trading.
I remember someone saying once that Hurricane Katrina is a guide to what collapse looks like. The wealthy people were the ones with clean drinking water.
I think NO! It would all depend on the reaction of the folks around you in such a SHTF situation. If you have a 1 ounce gold piece it sure could buy a lot of bread, milk and groceries but what will your change be? My personal opinion is that under the worst case scenario it would be better to have guns and lots of ammo to barter with but who really knows what to expect. I shudder to even think about it because man will do some very nasty things to feed his family and keep them protected.
People can always trade stuff, but having a universally recognized asset gives you the most flexibility to trade with. what if I already have firearms and ammo? I'll still probably take the gold for something you want. Your goal is to be able to trade the most efficiently.
If the economies of the world continue to slide into that black hole; i see oil is below $45.00 a barrel today and is expected to go into the $30.00's, that is a solid sign of deterioration. so now you have in your hands a few pounds of gold. what do you think it is worth at the moment, and will it not drop in price as well soon, yes of course. can you eat it or can you drink oil if you are in the oil selling business, the answer is obvious. so having gold ultimately is not of any value if the economies of the world collapse; is it? NO. What you might want to do is dig a root cellar and store as much food provisions as you can because the price of food IS increasing weekly.
Great question. In looking at our more recent history... When all hell broke loose under Pol Pot, gold played a role. It was hidden by some families (hidden from the government) and used to purchase food. It kept some people alive. Of course, if it was discovered that you had gold you lost your head. In a total collapse, small, spendable pieces of gold would probably be helpful - along with guns, ammo and fresh water.
First, there will be no collapse of the global economy. Ups and downs will always continue, but the Apocalypse/Goetterdaemerung/Mayan Calendar is just a story, and a silly one. A nuclear exchange, a nuclear winter… a volcano like Krakatoa… unforeseen catastrophe… Perhaps, albeit of short duration. In that case, your local economy may be the extent of your range. No more grapes from Chile or Kiwi Fruit…
Gold would be good, but silver would be better because you will need to carry out a large number of small transactions for some period, perhaps a year.
But the economies of the world are not going to collapse.
Even if you resorted to paying for local vegetables with silver coins, you might still well buy that Hermes purse with your Visa card… just saying'… because even during the actual and real Dark Ages, we know that Islamic coins were buried in Scandinavia and England. In fact, King Offa of Mercia (England) struck gold coins in imitation of Islamic coins, indicating the extent of trade and commerce, even in the worst of times.
It will not directly address your immediate needs for food & shelter without someone to exchange with for those items. It would be of much more use when things are being rebuilt, assuming a different monetary standard does not arise.
Here is an excellent site for answering some of your questions. Click on classroom or in this case he has a recent article up about a Texas Depository. He is a Phd in Econ. This is not one of those buy gold now! Places http://www.goldstandardinstitute.net/
I have been advised by some friends for a while now to have some physical gold in the event of a major collapse. I don't know how much that will matter if there is no Midas Mulligan to rebuild.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
It depends how far society collapses as well. How many intercontinental sailing ships (wind-only power) are there, how many horses and wagons, who has the technological skill to keep them traveling? Heck, how many people can get a crew together to cut down 5-10 acres of --appropriate-- oakwood, redwood (or pine) and hickory (not all trees are good for shipwrighting or wheel building) and even have the skills - let alone real, usable working tools - to build something like a sailing ship - without the aid of ANY power tools?
In the 1700's? Sure. In the 2100's? Probably not likely. And travel is the basis of trade currencies like silver and gold, and even then - it's an implied and agreed-upon value, not a value of necessity.
Maybe the wise person would do well to stock up on coal. Four chickens, 3 loaves, and a kilo of cheese? That'll be a pound and a half of lead, 3 of iron, and a 1/4 sack of anthracite. You want to put it on your Lead Master Card today?
My personal opinion is that under the worst case scenario it would be better to have guns and lots of ammo to barter with but who really knows what to expect. I shudder to even think about it because man will do some very nasty things to feed his family and keep them protected.
Remember Executive Order 6102.
Gold would be good, but silver would be better because you will need to carry out a large number of small transactions for some period, perhaps a year.
But the economies of the world are not going to collapse.
Even if you resorted to paying for local vegetables with silver coins, you might still well buy that Hermes purse with your Visa card… just saying'… because even during the actual and real Dark Ages, we know that Islamic coins were buried in Scandinavia and England. In fact, King Offa of Mercia (England) struck gold coins in imitation of Islamic coins, indicating the extent of trade and commerce, even in the worst of times.
It will not directly address your immediate needs for food & shelter without someone to exchange with for those items. It would be of much more use when things are being rebuilt, assuming a different monetary standard does not arise.
How wIll you react to a government confiscation of firearms, gold, silver, seeds?