a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by Kalq
Kalq  ·  4804 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Unless politicians actually do something about the world economy, be afraid
Honestly, I do think land is ultimately the best commodity to have under the circumstance of complete financial doomsday and indeed most financial circumstances. Ideally land that has a natural source of fresh water, underground or river. It allows you to be self sufficient, at least for your family, providing your own food and water. Perhaps if you're prepared enough you can set up some solar panels to generate a small amount of electricity for yourself, although I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough on this subject.

Obviously squatters are an issue but if you have excess land than what you and your family needs to live and grow food then you could very well rent out your land, obviously not for money, but some other service, helping out with the farm, defence of land. A feudal agreement of sorts.

Of course if no one respects your property, and are willing to kill you for it, then no commodity is better than any other. Even guns, you're just one person.





AhimMoonchowsen  ·  4804 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I agree with your assessment, land does seem the best investment. I only asked because of how absurd I think it is that people divest their assets to purchase "gold". -Makes no sense to me as far as an apocalyptic safety net goes.
Kalq  ·  4804 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Ultimately my evaluation of land being the most worthwhile asset is based on the requirement of survival and unless there is a massive cultural shift that destroys our love of gold (something thousands of years of time have failed to accomplish) then I still foresee gold being worth a lot. However in the immediate aftermath of a financial doomsday, land still seems to be the best commodity to not only stay on your feet, but perhaps to thrive. Once the immediate effects of the doomsday are over, a decade, a century (depends on the rate of recovery), gold will once again be worth a lot.
cgod  ·  4804 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I don't think that we are coming up on a Mad Max style economic implosion, more like things will suck and life will go on. Gold has held up pretty well under these condition for a few thousand years and will probably continue to provide a solid way to protect wealth for the foreseeable future.
AhimMoonchowsen  ·  4804 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Definitely. In fact it's been appreciating at an amazing pace. Time to sell grandmas old broach!
AhimMoonchowsen  ·  4804 days ago  ·  link  ·  
While its indisputable that gold has remained a benchmark of value for thousands of years and has almost always appreciated and while I agree that after a financial calamity abates, it will remain valuable... I'm not convinced that it would retain it's value after a MAJOR catastrophic collapse of financial markets. I feel like gold has been "grandfathered" in. If there were to be a clean slate, I don't see gold being the "standard". But it's likely this clean slate would only come at the cost of a major revolution -and the victors make the rules. If the current owners of wealth are on the prevailing side, then gold will keep it's place atop the heap of treasures. If the lower economic class prevails then it's likely to be something else. Perhaps chewing tobacco or hummels?
Kalq  ·  4804 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I don't know how likely that is. I don't mean to imply that there is something inherently valuable in gold but rather that I think there is something inherently attractive about gold for humans, and I honestly don't think this is likely to change even with a, as you say, clean slate. Gold is pretty. Almost objectively so. And it's a rare enough commodity with a, I honestly believe, high enough demand (regardless of a clean slate) to make it incredible valuable.

Let's take your clean slate example and pretend that the lower economic class somehow prevailed. I would assume that under this outcome, the lower class, in order to limit or eliminate the power of the wealthy would engage in redistribution of said wealth. Initially it would be the common useful items that would be highly prized, tobacca and hummel (I'm assuming you mean barley). Throughout this time, I think gold would maintain its value, however the value of acquiring basic necessities would overshadow gold's value. As time went by and the economy began to stabilize, I think the value of these common items would drop in comparison and beautiful things such as gold and silver and diamond would become highly desirable again, and in vast quantities. Gold is pretty. We like pretty things even if they're not useful.

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." ~Publilius Syrus

And humans will always pay hand over fist for gold.

mk  ·  4803 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Gold is pretty. Almost objectively so.

True.

I had a very odd dream last night: My wife and I were browsing in a shop that had a bunch of oddities, and I found a bin of branches. I picked up a branch and heard a rattle. Breaking the branch, I found an old tin was inside. I showed the store owner, and he opened the tin. It was full of gold rivets. We Googled these rivets somehow, and found they were made in the late 1500's and were 40% gold. -Such a fucking bizarre dream.

Anyway, my subconscious finds gold to be of value, even if its sense of history is fucked. :)

I don't see everyone waking up an agreeing that gold is essentially useless. It's more than its rarity, too. It doesn't rust, and it can't be easily destroyed. Once you have it, you have it.

All that said, I don't see an apocalyptic calamity on the way. Lot's of people are going to be out of work, and maybe some governments will get a new face, but we'll get through this.

Land is good. As the saying goes: "They aren't making any more of it."