<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>Malgus wrote:</div>By the way, “you can’t make a weapon out of it”…. from a metallurgical standpoint, pure, dead-soft gold would make a fair substitute for a lead musket ball or bullet, provided the velocities are not too high. Alloyed, it would make a better bullet as you could shove it faster, making it more effective…
It would be one damn expensive musket ball, but it would do the job… Just sayin’….
No one is arguing the value of gold. The issue is we define the term “money” differently. In layman’s terms, I understand your perspective. In technical terms, I disagree. The problem I see in a variety of situations is people read something on the internet, especially something written by a respected member of whatever community they ascribe to, and assume the terminology they’ve read applies across all spectrums. Then we have people rallying to bring the gold standard back, and I think that’s a terrible idea. Our economy and financial structure is screwed, undoubtedly, but simply reverting back to a gold-based economy is a fantasy. It wouldn’t work, not in today’s structure. There are plenty of ways to make it work, but the gold standard isn’t it.
Come SHTF, commodities (such as precious metals, food, bullets, etc) will be invaluable, and fiat money will be useful for burning to keep warm (a la Germany post WWI). Until then, precious metals (as well as other commodities) are an excellent way to store wealth.
You’re a respected member of this forum community. I would hate to see someone take your writings, make assumptions based on them, and put effort down a path that is at best futile, and at worst counterproductive.