On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 13:01, Daniel Crookston wrote: > > On the other hand, in a real emergency, or if order were to break down, > > cash becomes a worthless piece of paper. After all money is completely > > artificial. But we need it because we have attached value to it as a > > world, and so we need to have it. > > And that is why I have a box full of gold, rubies, sapphires, and diamonds > in my bedroom. Hardest stuff of value there is, but it's not terribly > liquid. It would be if there were some kind of government-shaking > catastrophe though. Go ahead, call me paranoid.
Gold is no more valuable than paper cash. In a real emergency, the things of value (what will be stolen, traded, and so forth) will be food, water, basic materials. Fuel and generators also would be more highly valued than gold. Land is also an asset that would not lose it's value (at least in many parts of the world). When society breaks down, as we can see from the Book of Mormon, civilation reverts back to a more primitive state where bartering and other things replace the organized system of commerce that was in place. Money will doubtlessly be worthless unless someone backs it up with goods (we used to have a gold standard). Gold and minerals probably could be traded as valuables, but unless ultimately someone can make something out of them, then it will be worthless as well. Michael > > Daniel > > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
