Topic: In a post-apocalyptic world
squeegee !firstkPE1Q started this discussion 14 years ago #19,206
Will people give a fuck about your shiny chunks of useless (and heavy) gold, or will they just kill you for your filthy jugs of water?
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gold is always valuable! | 10 | 56% | |
| PLEASE STOP RAPING MY DEAD WIFE!@ | 8 | 44% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #315,951
Actually, they will offer gold to desperate people who will kill you for your water and deliver it to the people with the gold.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,953
How high are my speech and barter skills on this situation?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,959
I will permit you to rape my dead wife for 1 ounce of gold.
while thinking "dumb fuck doesn't know he just paid good money for sex with a corpse."
while thinking "dumb fuck doesn't know he just paid good money for sex with a corpse."
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,055
It depends on the situation. If everyone is starving, food, water, and shelter are all that really matter. As the survivors attain those items, safety and a sustainable supply of those assets takes precedence. Eventually, small communities will form. As these communities grow and evolve, a need for currency will develop. The first currencies will probably be things that are useful, portable, and relatively nonperishable - bullets, matches, dried food, etc. As people gain faith in their security and the new society, smaller albeit less useful currencies will begin to take hold. They will need to be rare enough to hold value and have a universal value. Money from before the event could fit the former, but not probably not the latter. Precious metals and gems, however, should fit both requirements. ie: If you hold up a few dollars, some traders will say that the money is worthless to them, but if you hold up a gold coin, every trader will accept that.So, tl;dr it will be valuable, but only in the long run and only if enough people survive and cooperate to form large communities.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,065
@previous (brainwurms !!gbU9At49F)
Cool Pyramid. However in pure desperation mode...One first must breath to survive & the need for water cannot be argued with.
Morality would come later - Nice to be there but Animals and Humans are Animals & Morality becomes a luxury after pure existence.
Cool Pyramid. However in pure desperation mode...One first must breath to survive & the need for water cannot be argued with.
Morality would come later - Nice to be there but Animals and Humans are Animals & Morality becomes a luxury after pure existence.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,076
@previous (F)
Any person who remains alive obviously has adequate resources of food and water, by some undefined means. There's even a good chance they'll have an abundance. These are the people in a position to trade, the people with access to food and water. And they're the only people who matter when you get down to it.
People without access and without gold will be dead.
Any person who remains alive obviously has adequate resources of food and water, by some undefined means. There's even a good chance they'll have an abundance. These are the people in a position to trade, the people with access to food and water. And they're the only people who matter when you get down to it.
People without access and without gold will be dead.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,095
@previous (B)
Actually from personal experience (by proxy) I can sorta agree. Had a world class GF who's family escaped from Iran to Los Angeles.
Gold was their only means of survival and survival they did and produced the GF. Persians can be sexy and of great comfort if you get my drift.
Actually from personal experience (by proxy) I can sorta agree. Had a world class GF who's family escaped from Iran to Los Angeles.
Gold was their only means of survival and survival they did and produced the GF. Persians can be sexy and of great comfort if you get my drift.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,191
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,193
That would almost make it good to live in Michigan.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,195
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,198
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,206
Gold has been used as a backer for wealth for a long time. I posit that in a complete apocalypse scenario a new currency would arise backed by fresh water, but would soon move onto gold as societies reform.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,207
@316,065 (F)
The real question is, would people be willing to kill for gold in post apocalyptic society?
The real question is, would people be willing to kill for gold in post apocalyptic society?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,208
@previous (D)
Sure. I'm sure somebody would be greedy and immoral enough, especially since there's no law enforcement.
Sure. I'm sure somebody would be greedy and immoral enough, especially since there's no law enforcement.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,209
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,213
@previous (D)
Depends on the person. But ultimately food and water would take priority over gold if it came down to one or the other. For most people, anyway.
Depends on the person. But ultimately food and water would take priority over gold if it came down to one or the other. For most people, anyway.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,214
@316,209 (D)
Until all those idiots who value gold starve to death, or die of thirst, or get killed in retaliation for killing people.
Until all those idiots who value gold starve to death, or die of thirst, or get killed in retaliation for killing people.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,216
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> idiots who value gold.
> idiots
> gold
Possibility #1:
Doesn't understand economics and/or chemistry.
Possibility #2:
Doesn't have any gold and feels bad about it.
> idiots who value gold.
> idiots
> gold
Possibility #1:
Doesn't understand economics and/or chemistry.
Possibility #2:
Doesn't have any gold and feels bad about it.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,217
@previous (B)
> Doesn't understand that we're having a conversation about a post-apocalyptic society.
> Doesn't understand that we're having a conversation about a post-apocalyptic society.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,272
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
If society ever rebuilds itself, it probably won't rely on the barter system.
If society ever rebuilds itself, it probably won't rely on the barter system.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,287
i imagine ammunition would be worth far more than gold
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,292
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,338
@316,287 (L)
The price of ammunition is irrelevant. We're speculating as to whether or not people would accept trade in gold in a post apocalyptic society.
The price of ammunition is irrelevant. We're speculating as to whether or not people would accept trade in gold in a post apocalyptic society.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,347
@316,191 (G)
The pyramid depicts the needs/wants of humans for them to be happy. First you need physiological security, then safety, etc. The majority of the first world is at the top of the pyramid, but not every one in this world is.
The pyramid depicts the needs/wants of humans for them to be happy. First you need physiological security, then safety, etc. The majority of the first world is at the top of the pyramid, but not every one in this world is.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,349
@previous (N)
There is no longer secuirty of employment in the first world. Most of the world is code orange.
There is no longer secuirty of employment in the first world. Most of the world is code orange.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #316,358
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,372
@316,349 (D)
Lots of people are still in the blue. If they weren't, we wouldn't have any entertainment as no one would have time to be creative. Nor would people have the money and leisure time for entertainment.
Overall, I think we're still in the blue as a society. People will always be unemployed. You can't peg a society to its least common denominator.
Wait, are we still hypothetically talking about a post-apocalyptic society? Yeah, I guess you're right then. I thought you were just speaking in general.
Lots of people are still in the blue. If they weren't, we wouldn't have any entertainment as no one would have time to be creative. Nor would people have the money and leisure time for entertainment.
Overall, I think we're still in the blue as a society. People will always be unemployed. You can't peg a society to its least common denominator.
Wait, are we still hypothetically talking about a post-apocalyptic society? Yeah, I guess you're right then. I thought you were just speaking in general.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,374
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Obviously, this pyramid is meant to apply to individuals and not really society as a whole. But I agree in a post-apocalyptic society most people would be operating near the bottom.
Obviously, this pyramid is meant to apply to individuals and not really society as a whole. But I agree in a post-apocalyptic society most people would be operating near the bottom.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,378
@316,338 (B)
no, gold doesnt help people survive, thus it will be worthless asside from slingshot/cannon ammo
no, gold doesnt help people survive, thus it will be worthless asside from slingshot/cannon ammo
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,380
@previous (L)
I agree. people will be fighting over batteries, food, water, weapons, shelter, medicine, skills, and pussy.
I agree. people will be fighting over batteries, food, water, weapons, shelter, medicine, skills, and pussy.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,381
@316,378 (L)
Well if it can be used as ammunition than it's at least as valuable as ammunition is. Way to shit all over your own argument genius.
Well if it can be used as ammunition than it's at least as valuable as ammunition is. Way to shit all over your own argument genius.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,397
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,399
@316,380 (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Do you think it will be easier or harder for a guy to get laid in a post-apocalyptic world compared to now?
Do you think it will be easier or harder for a guy to get laid in a post-apocalyptic world compared to now?
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,400
@316,397 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Did you ever see 28 Days Later? a group of survivors, one male, two female arrive at a well armed, well stocked fort, and leave because the soldiers want to have sex. So damn ridiculous.
Did you ever see 28 Days Later? a group of survivors, one male, two female arrive at a well armed, well stocked fort, and leave because the soldiers want to have sex. So damn ridiculous.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,401
@316,399 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well, that's tricky. Females would be scarce because of their inability to fight off zombies as effectively as men, but if you managed to find one who wasn't attached you would probably have a wife. Most women would just be happy to be able to avoid becoming a passaround.
Well, that's tricky. Females would be scarce because of their inability to fight off zombies as effectively as men, but if you managed to find one who wasn't attached you would probably have a wife. Most women would just be happy to be able to avoid becoming a passaround.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,403
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Ok, time for me to work towards causing the apocalypse so I can finally get laid.
Ok, time for me to work towards causing the apocalypse so I can finally get laid.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,404
@316,399 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Easier. If people are reduced to their most basic instincts, no one cares about social status or caring if people think you're a slut, etc. It's free entertainment, and probably one of the only sources of entertainment/stress-relief, and it's an easy way to get resources and protection. Not to mention the sad reality that a lot of women would be raped or become prostitutes. Bottom line is sex becomes a cheap thrill.
Easier. If people are reduced to their most basic instincts, no one cares about social status or caring if people think you're a slut, etc. It's free entertainment, and probably one of the only sources of entertainment/stress-relief, and it's an easy way to get resources and protection. Not to mention the sad reality that a lot of women would be raped or become prostitutes. Bottom line is sex becomes a cheap thrill.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 14 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,405
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,406
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I'm too far from Vegas and I have too much pride to sleep with a prostitute/escort. It would be easier to just cause the end of the civilized world as we know it.
I'm too far from Vegas and I have too much pride to sleep with a prostitute/escort. It would be easier to just cause the end of the civilized world as we know it.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,408
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I'm too far from Vegas
Travelling to Vegas is still easier than causing the apocalypse
> and I have too much pride to sleep with a prostitute/escort
I think you need to re-read my post. How would sex in a post-apocalyptic world be better than prostitution?
> It would be easier to just cause the end of the civilized world as we know it.
Well yeah, but it's still not going to get you a real companion.
> I'm too far from Vegas
Travelling to Vegas is still easier than causing the apocalypse
> and I have too much pride to sleep with a prostitute/escort
I think you need to re-read my post. How would sex in a post-apocalyptic world be better than prostitution?
> It would be easier to just cause the end of the civilized world as we know it.
Well yeah, but it's still not going to get you a real companion.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,423
@316,399 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Men with big guns will get laid quite easily while men without will be shunned. Not much different from now really only it'll cease to be a metaphor. The guns being actual guns as opposed to penises or biceps.
Men with big guns will get laid quite easily while men without will be shunned. Not much different from now really only it'll cease to be a metaphor. The guns being actual guns as opposed to penises or biceps.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,425
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,427
DEC 21 is fast approachingAnonymous Q replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,436
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,438
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,479
@316,381 (B)your arguement is if gold will be useful as a purdy metal
my arguement is based on golds practical uses, and on that note, its a pretty soft metal, so itd be relativly useless
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
squeegee !firstkPE1Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,485
It's a post-apocalyptic world and suddenly everyone has gold. The future is a brighter tomorrow.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,486
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 14 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,487
Ron Paul joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,495
Definitely the gold.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,505
Anonymous Q replied with this 14 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #316,512
@316,486 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
You're talking to a troll, and/or moron.
@previous (L)
A fine quality when fuel is in short supply.
You're talking to a troll, and/or moron.
@previous (L)
A fine quality when fuel is in short supply.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Dr Bumhert joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,154
The only thing that stops people from doing that now is the possibility of defense/retaliation. That would still happen post-apocalypse. It is human nature to coöperate.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 47 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,198
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,208
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Only if they could be sure that other people would accept gold as currency. Gold is no different from any other currency, the only difference with gold is that you can't print more, but because it doesn't have any real use, it's currency. In a world where society has collapsed and everyone is struggling to find resources to survive, currency becomes worthless, gold included. No one on the verge of starvation or dying of thirst is going to give up food and/or water in exchange for gold.
The gold advocate keeps saying "but when things get better gold will hold its value so it's a good investment." That's if you have enough disposable resources to invest, and even then it doesn't regain its value until society starts picking up again. A pile of gold is no good if you die of thirst. It's like yelling at someone who's living paycheck to paycheck and barely getting by that it's they're poor for not investing the extra income they don't have on gold.
Only if they could be sure that other people would accept gold as currency. Gold is no different from any other currency, the only difference with gold is that you can't print more, but because it doesn't have any real use, it's currency. In a world where society has collapsed and everyone is struggling to find resources to survive, currency becomes worthless, gold included. No one on the verge of starvation or dying of thirst is going to give up food and/or water in exchange for gold.
The gold advocate keeps saying "but when things get better gold will hold its value so it's a good investment." That's if you have enough disposable resources to invest, and even then it doesn't regain its value until society starts picking up again. A pile of gold is no good if you die of thirst. It's like yelling at someone who's living paycheck to paycheck and barely getting by that it's they're poor for not investing the extra income they don't have on gold.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,213
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
The gold advocate is Mountainman, and he rarely argues in a rational manner and never admits when he loses a debate.
The gold advocate is Mountainman, and he rarely argues in a rational manner and never admits when he loses a debate.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,215
@317,208 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
gold has a lot of uses in electronics but as ive said before a post-apocalyptic scenario doesn't make it practical to use it for such purposes
gold has a lot of uses in electronics but as ive said before a post-apocalyptic scenario doesn't make it practical to use it for such purposes
Dr Bumhert replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,225
@317,198 (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Possibly yes, because of tradition and history. There is nothing magic about gold as currency, apart from certain physical characteristics such as not tarnishing, but I think it is likely "hard" currencies would be adopted.
@317,208 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Your argument is ridiculous. People on the verge of starvation or dying of thirst won't trade food and water for anything. Satiated people with food and water will trade for it, whether by barter, or by a widely recognized store of value, such as precious metals.
Possibly yes, because of tradition and history. There is nothing magic about gold as currency, apart from certain physical characteristics such as not tarnishing, but I think it is likely "hard" currencies would be adopted.
@317,208 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Your argument is ridiculous. People on the verge of starvation or dying of thirst won't trade food and water for anything. Satiated people with food and water will trade for it, whether by barter, or by a widely recognized store of value, such as precious metals.
Dr Bumhert double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,229
@317,213 (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Has anyone ITT actually advocated gold, or merely argued that it is likely that gold would continue it's historic and traditional usage as currency?
Has anyone ITT actually advocated gold, or merely argued that it is likely that gold would continue it's historic and traditional usage as currency?
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,247
Dr Bumhert replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,259
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
What do you mean, you don't know? One post earlier you just claimed someone was a gold advocate. Which of these contradictory propositions do you reject?
What do you mean, you don't know? One post earlier you just claimed someone was a gold advocate. Which of these contradictory propositions do you reject?
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,261
@previous (Dr Bumhert)
I referenced that term to connect it to brosephs post. he might not be a gold advocate. not important either way.
I referenced that term to connect it to brosephs post. he might not be a gold advocate. not important either way.
Dr Bumhert replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,289
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
I believe he was using "the gold advocate" to refer to the archetypical gold advocate, not a specific poster ITT. I may be wrong.
I believe he was using "the gold advocate" to refer to the archetypical gold advocate, not a specific poster ITT. I may be wrong.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,331
@317,225 (Dr Bumhert)
> Your argument is ridiculous. People on the verge of starvation or dying of thirst won't trade food and water for anything. Satiated people with food and water will trade for it, whether by barter, or by a widely recognized store of value, such as precious metals.
Currency is based on faith, gold included. Since gold is pretty much useless to you in this world, the only reason you would accept gold is because you know you can trade it for other goods and services. You just admitted that people struggling are not going to accept gold. We can assume that at least 9/10 people are struggling in this apocalyptic society. If they are not starving/thirsty, they still have limited resources that they are rationing and will not give them up for gold. That means that gold loses about 9/10 of its value right there. Since 90% of the people around you won't accept it, it has almost no value. The few people who have enough resources that they have enough that they're willing to give something up in exchange for something else are going to take into account that 9/10 of the people around them are not going to accept gold, so even the people who have something to give up won't take gold for this reason. They'd rather trade what they have for what they need directly, or take something that they know other people around them will accept. This is why currency, including gold, has very little to no value in an apocalyptic society.
If there actually are enough resources to go around that people start using gold as currency instead of bartering, then you can't really call it an apocalyptic society, so either way the argument for gold is invalid.
> Your argument is ridiculous. People on the verge of starvation or dying of thirst won't trade food and water for anything. Satiated people with food and water will trade for it, whether by barter, or by a widely recognized store of value, such as precious metals.
Currency is based on faith, gold included. Since gold is pretty much useless to you in this world, the only reason you would accept gold is because you know you can trade it for other goods and services. You just admitted that people struggling are not going to accept gold. We can assume that at least 9/10 people are struggling in this apocalyptic society. If they are not starving/thirsty, they still have limited resources that they are rationing and will not give them up for gold. That means that gold loses about 9/10 of its value right there. Since 90% of the people around you won't accept it, it has almost no value. The few people who have enough resources that they have enough that they're willing to give something up in exchange for something else are going to take into account that 9/10 of the people around them are not going to accept gold, so even the people who have something to give up won't take gold for this reason. They'd rather trade what they have for what they need directly, or take something that they know other people around them will accept. This is why currency, including gold, has very little to no value in an apocalyptic society.
If there actually are enough resources to go around that people start using gold as currency instead of bartering, then you can't really call it an apocalyptic society, so either way the argument for gold is invalid.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,342
Never forget that In a post-apocalyptic world, peoples teeth will have horrid decay problems. Gold because its Malleable, is more better to plug up holes and keep teeth working, to chew up whatever.
Dr Bumhert replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,350
@317,331 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Currency is based on faith, gold included.
Nobody has denied this ITT.
> Since gold is pretty much useless to you in this world, the only reason
"Useless" is a somewhat meaningless term in this discussion. Gold is aesthetically pleasing and is "useful" in art &c. "Usefulness" is subjective. Everybody has a different preference order.
> you would accept gold [..] because you know you can trade it for other goods and services.
Agreed - gold is useful as currency not intrinsically, but because of consensus.
Your argument is flawed because if people don't have enough goods, they don't trade for anything. Trade is born of surplus. People without surplus are not part of the market. I believe you are confused because much of your argument is on tangential subjects that don't affect the main argument at all.
This topic is about a post-apocalyptic society, not an apocalyptic society.
> Currency is based on faith, gold included.
Nobody has denied this ITT.
> Since gold is pretty much useless to you in this world, the only reason
"Useless" is a somewhat meaningless term in this discussion. Gold is aesthetically pleasing and is "useful" in art &c. "Usefulness" is subjective. Everybody has a different preference order.
> you would accept gold [..] because you know you can trade it for other goods and services.
Agreed - gold is useful as currency not intrinsically, but because of consensus.
Your argument is flawed because if people don't have enough goods, they don't trade for anything. Trade is born of surplus. People without surplus are not part of the market. I believe you are confused because much of your argument is on tangential subjects that don't affect the main argument at all.
This topic is about a post-apocalyptic society, not an apocalyptic society.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,352
> lolvoting.png
brie !OudrPWaUDQ double-posted this 14 years ago, 30 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,354
brie !OudrPWaUDQ triple-posted this 14 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,355
brie !OudrPWaUDQ quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 22 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,356
brie !OudrPWaUDQ quintuple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,358
There will be no bread, no food, not water, not anything...
Everybody will suffer and the end times will truely beupoonus.
Everybody will suffer and the end times will truely beupoonus.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ sextuple-posted this 14 years ago, 28 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,361
brie !OudrPWaUDQ septuple-posted this 14 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,362
Dr Bumhert replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,373
Don't know if I was clear enough last post so I will go point by point:
> You just admitted that people struggling are not going to accept gold.
People without surplus will not trade anything for anything. They are not part of the market.
> We can assume that at least 9/10 people are struggling in this apocalyptic society.
Baseless and irrelevant assumption.
> If they are not starving/thirsty, they still have limited resources that they are rationing and will not give them up for gold.
If they are rationing them, then they will not trade them for anything. Thus they are not part of the market and are irrelevant for economic calculation.
> That means that gold loses about 9/10 of its value right there.
Completely meaningless. What is the baseline? Pre-apocalypse gold prices? Such a thing is unknowable.
> Since 90% of the people around you won't accept it, it has almost no value.
This 90% is not part of the market and has no bearing on economic calculation.
> The few people who have enough resources that they have enough that they're willing to give something up in exchange for something else are going to take into account that 9/10 of the people around them are not going to accept gold, so even the people who have something to give up won't take gold for this reason.
The 90% are not trading anything. They are not accepting anything. THey are irrelevant to economic calculation.
> They'd rather trade what they have for what they need directly,
Not always possible. The butcher can buy garments from the vegetarian tailor because of currency.
> or take something that they know other people around them will accept. This is why currency, including gold, has very little to no value in an apocalyptic society.
I argue that currency is very useful for the the facilitation of trade, and will be used. I am not arguing that it will necessarily be gold, but gold is a likely choice because history, tradition, and certain intrinsic qualities of gold (divisibility, non-tarnishing etc).
> If there actually are enough resources to go around that people start using gold as currency instead of bartering,
No more resources are required for currency use to be more beneficial than barter.
> then you can't really call it an apocalyptic society, so either way the argument for gold is invalid.
Moving the goalposts.
> You just admitted that people struggling are not going to accept gold.
People without surplus will not trade anything for anything. They are not part of the market.
> We can assume that at least 9/10 people are struggling in this apocalyptic society.
Baseless and irrelevant assumption.
> If they are not starving/thirsty, they still have limited resources that they are rationing and will not give them up for gold.
If they are rationing them, then they will not trade them for anything. Thus they are not part of the market and are irrelevant for economic calculation.
> That means that gold loses about 9/10 of its value right there.
Completely meaningless. What is the baseline? Pre-apocalypse gold prices? Such a thing is unknowable.
> Since 90% of the people around you won't accept it, it has almost no value.
This 90% is not part of the market and has no bearing on economic calculation.
> The few people who have enough resources that they have enough that they're willing to give something up in exchange for something else are going to take into account that 9/10 of the people around them are not going to accept gold, so even the people who have something to give up won't take gold for this reason.
The 90% are not trading anything. They are not accepting anything. THey are irrelevant to economic calculation.
> They'd rather trade what they have for what they need directly,
Not always possible. The butcher can buy garments from the vegetarian tailor because of currency.
> or take something that they know other people around them will accept. This is why currency, including gold, has very little to no value in an apocalyptic society.
I argue that currency is very useful for the the facilitation of trade, and will be used. I am not arguing that it will necessarily be gold, but gold is a likely choice because history, tradition, and certain intrinsic qualities of gold (divisibility, non-tarnishing etc).
> If there actually are enough resources to go around that people start using gold as currency instead of bartering,
No more resources are required for currency use to be more beneficial than barter.
> then you can't really call it an apocalyptic society, so either way the argument for gold is invalid.
Moving the goalposts.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,590
@317,331 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Currency is based on faith, gold included.
Exactly! But the specific quality of faith varies by the currency in question. The value of fiat comes from faith the IRS will accept it to leave you the fuck alone.
Faith in gold means faith that: 1) it will not corrode, 2) it will remain rare, and 3) rare and permanent will remain desirable qualities to others.
The first and second point are scientifically verifiable, so faith in gold there is entirely rational. The third point requires faith other people are rational and educated. We already have a serious minority here. Maybe it'll get worse as society becomes more apocalyptic, or maybe post-apocalyptic society will afford a greater survival advantage to the rational than modern society does. That's a tough call.
But still, like Meatloaf says, two out of three ain't bad.
> Currency is based on faith, gold included.
Exactly! But the specific quality of faith varies by the currency in question. The value of fiat comes from faith the IRS will accept it to leave you the fuck alone.
Faith in gold means faith that: 1) it will not corrode, 2) it will remain rare, and 3) rare and permanent will remain desirable qualities to others.
The first and second point are scientifically verifiable, so faith in gold there is entirely rational. The third point requires faith other people are rational and educated. We already have a serious minority here. Maybe it'll get worse as society becomes more apocalyptic, or maybe post-apocalyptic society will afford a greater survival advantage to the rational than modern society does. That's a tough call.
But still, like Meatloaf says, two out of three ain't bad.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,593
@previous (V)
> > Currency is based on faith, gold included.
>
> Exactly! But the specific quality of faith varies by the currency in question. The value of fiat comes from faith the IRS will accept it to leave you the fuck alone.
>
> Faith in gold means faith that: 1) it will not corrode, 2) it will remain rare, and 3) rare and permanent will remain desirable qualities to others.
>
> The first and second point are scientifically verifiable, so faith in gold there is entirely rational. The third point requires faith other people are rational and educated. We already have a serious minority here. Maybe it'll get worse as society becomes more apocalyptic, or maybe post-apocalyptic society will afford a greater survival advantage to the rational than modern society does. That's a tough call.
>
> But still, like Meatloaf says, two out of three ain't bad.
> > Currency is based on faith, gold included.
>
> Exactly! But the specific quality of faith varies by the currency in question. The value of fiat comes from faith the IRS will accept it to leave you the fuck alone.
>
> Faith in gold means faith that: 1) it will not corrode, 2) it will remain rare, and 3) rare and permanent will remain desirable qualities to others.
>
> The first and second point are scientifically verifiable, so faith in gold there is entirely rational. The third point requires faith other people are rational and educated. We already have a serious minority here. Maybe it'll get worse as society becomes more apocalyptic, or maybe post-apocalyptic society will afford a greater survival advantage to the rational than modern society does. That's a tough call.
>
> But still, like Meatloaf says, two out of three ain't bad.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,603
To the people talking about barter in ITT:
Go fuck a shit up your ass. Claiming barter will replace currency is every bit as retarded as claiming slide rules will replace calculators. It is impossably innefecient.
Oh, and nobody's teeth rot out post apocalypse. Cause you know, toothpaste factories are still in business. Lol.
Go fuck a shit up your ass. Claiming barter will replace currency is every bit as retarded as claiming slide rules will replace calculators. It is impossably innefecient.
Oh, and nobody's teeth rot out post apocalypse. Cause you know, toothpaste factories are still in business. Lol.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 41 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,668
@previous (D)
The fuck are you on about?
Inefficient? Dude, it'd be necessary. After the govs that back money fail and a majority of people on earth starve and kill each other the survivors will be trading and scavenging to survive. The rules fundamentally change when there is no state to back it.
Again, if there is unregulated currency, who sets its value?
If it's value cannot be set and is therefor higly volatile, why would anyone want it as currency?
What is the richest man on a desolate, wrecked and barren world saving his money for?
The fuck are you on about?
Inefficient? Dude, it'd be necessary. After the govs that back money fail and a majority of people on earth starve and kill each other the survivors will be trading and scavenging to survive. The rules fundamentally change when there is no state to back it.
Again, if there is unregulated currency, who sets its value?
If it's value cannot be set and is therefor higly volatile, why would anyone want it as currency?
What is the richest man on a desolate, wrecked and barren world saving his money for?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 38 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #317,705
@previous (A)
> who sets its value?
Thinks a central autority is necessary for the concept of currency to survive. LOL.
Look we get it. You'd rather spend your money on vidya than gold and you're rationalizing that decision. But you've specifically argued gold would be totally useless. A laugable assumption considering the utility of non-bioreactive metals. Desperate people will be using lead as substitute, and they'll be dead too.
Gold will never be totally useless to humans simply becuase it is compatable with out basic biology. Therefore people will barter for gold same as they barter for everything else. After a time, they will come to recognize they've eaten and shit out all the other things bartered for while they still have the gold on hand. This will make them naturally curious to know what something is worth in terms of gold, and gold will emerge as the preferred form of currency. Same as it did 5000 years ago.
> who sets its value?
Thinks a central autority is necessary for the concept of currency to survive. LOL.
Look we get it. You'd rather spend your money on vidya than gold and you're rationalizing that decision. But you've specifically argued gold would be totally useless. A laugable assumption considering the utility of non-bioreactive metals. Desperate people will be using lead as substitute, and they'll be dead too.
Gold will never be totally useless to humans simply becuase it is compatable with out basic biology. Therefore people will barter for gold same as they barter for everything else. After a time, they will come to recognize they've eaten and shit out all the other things bartered for while they still have the gold on hand. This will make them naturally curious to know what something is worth in terms of gold, and gold will emerge as the preferred form of currency. Same as it did 5000 years ago.