posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:15 AM
I was having an argument with someone who is something of a survivalist about why I think gold is overrated. She has a friend who is putting a very
large portion of their income into gold and silver presuming a breakdown scenario.
While I recognize the intrinsic value of precious metals, the reason why I think this is a poor strategy is because their value assumes the existence
of a meaningful market economy in a societal breakdown. This may very well be valid in some scenarios, but I can see how it wouldn't be in
But here's the situation I gave. Let's pretend I'm a farmer. If someone comes and offers me silver for a share of my crops, and assuming my crops
are limited to a point where I don't have excess to trade, I have to wonder what immediate value silver would have. Trading it later might sound
like a good idea, but in a breakdown, I think people will be more apt to hole up than trade, and therefore if trades happen, they'll be on an
immediate barter basis, because people won't trust to trade for silver, gold or anything else because 1) most wouldn't be qualified to tell what was
real anyway and 2) it lacks any immediate value.
Guns, ammunition, food stuffs, manufactured items, all these things seem inherently more valuable as something to use as opposed to just having
something with which to buy this theoretical stuff.
In fairness, her argument was the economy would continue in cities, which would maybe fit better, but I know with my own planning, I put so much
greater emphasis on items that allow me to be self-sufficient, not baubles worthy of trade.