I would still make a case for gold and silver.
They have been recognised as having value for thousands of years and there is still enough in circulation to mean that people would have some when the world went into the crapper. It's relatively easy to discover if it is real or not and very easy to transport.
Much will depend on what value is attached to it although the same holds doubly for paper money. If you tag an ounce of silver at one day's food, an ounce of gold is usually valued at 60 times higher so a family with only a couple of ounces of gold would still be able to buy 120 days of food with it.
Humans need some sort of option other than barter if we are going to trade effectively and gold and silver seem to fit the bill better than some existing currency. Currencies only hold value because a government backs it. If you are in Krakow during 2000, a franc is just paper because it is next to impossible to see how France could back up the promissory note in any effective way. Gold and silver on the other hand are tangible and have a perceived intrinsic value.
True, a starving hunter is unlikely to give up his gun for whatever amount of bullion you offer him, but neither is h going to sell it for a fistful of francs. A merchant or farmer on the other hand seems to me to be more likely to trade goods of bullion than a paper note from a country over a thousand miles and three hostile armies away.
I don't see a problem with using gold and silver as a fairly universal currency until enough places get organised enough to be trusted as currencies in other areas.
|