Oh, perhaps your understanding of early American economic history pivots on the sale of Manhattan island to the Dutch by a tribe of Indians for some beads? A bit selective perhaps, and a narrow experience for a pivotal historical thesis. It may be like basing a general history of European Banking on Wall Street's recent selling worthless CDO "wampum" to the continent's commercial banks. But this does bring to mind a possible advert campaign about early cavemen preferring beads and dollars and euros to gold, a la GEICO. - Jesse)  [Then there was this:]

   Comment 5 from Jesse
    "Perhaps if I phrase it this way it might be more clear.

    In one philosophic sense, gold is indeed a fiat valuation, if all valuations are fiat,
    nothing being essential but air to breathe, food to eat, shelter and clothing in
    roughly that order. All else is discretion.

    Gold, however, may be less fiat, less arbitrary a a money, a medium of exchange
    and a store of value, rather than the essential itself,
    in an other than barter economy. Just as the Aussie dollar or the euro may be less ephemeral than the US dollar,

    This is what is happening. The Bank of England made an error in selling its nation's
    gold 'at the bottom' and will pay a price for this; live with it.

    Oh, and try to move on please, else you may begin to resemble King Canute, sitting
    on his throne at ocean's edge, ordering the incoming tide to stop its inundation.

My own view is that all values are social constructs and are therefore subject to social deconstruction, both in point of analysis and in point of actuality. But it has also been my sad observation that the older the value and the more deeply and widely embedded it is, the more it resists eradication. So, in a worst case of depression combined with monetary inflation, one is likely to be able to find some who will accept gold in exchange for some important good or service, perhaps not at what ever "spot price", if any, might prevail, but likely for well more than the value of the fiat currency that was used to purchase the gold in better times. In less dire circumstances the gold would be likely to have served as a vehicle for preservation of wealth through a period of monetary chaos. Jesse has accused Wm. Buiter of "talking his book" specifically on gold and made a case as to why central bankers hate gold:

Quite a few options are coming due on the US Comex next week, and the bankers may be once more 'staring into an abyss.' Or setting up for a big push lower to 'save the banks.' That would be traditional central banking stewardship of late days.

   "We looked into the abyss if the gold price rose further. A further rise would have taken down one or several trading houses, which might have taken down all the rest in their wake..." Eddie George, Governor Bank of England, in a conversation with CEO of Lonmin, September 1999

"W. Buiter, CBE, Member Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England (1997-2000)" Shoulder to shoulder on the brink, eh? That must have been rather intense and worthy for peers of the realm, skinning the specs. Oh, bravo.

People can remain rational and place their trust in the timeless longer than central bankers and politicos can feed them arbitrary illusions and promissories for wealth on the bankers' terms. At least while they retain free market choice.

So having SOME gold or silver, as opposed to having ALL of one's assets in gold or silver, might be  reasonable. Having a house free and clear with some solar and wind power capability and some spot of land on which one can grow a garden might also be a reasonable idea. If one has a well on the property and the ability to operate it with one's own power, that is another plus, as is living in an area of relatively low population density and of above average rainfall.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."