Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;jolumoga, post: 1632332, member: 41780&quot;]Well, I have heard that saying before, and honestly I am very skeptical of it.&nbsp; In any famine, or similar hypothetical scenario, it appears to be implied that the person is legless, immobile, and that the world is simplified to the point that there is no other option than to put food in the mouth or starve.&nbsp; Surely, someone in Ireland during the famine would have been willing to trade massive amounts of food for gold, or to take a wealthy Irishman with a boatload of gold to England or elsewhere on his fishing boat if need be, where there was no famine.&nbsp; There the Irishman with gold might live like a king and have his harem.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let&#039;s look at Ethiopia as an example.&nbsp; Surely, all other things equal, an Ethiopian with a truckload of gold fares better off than an Ethiopian farmer depending on good weather to survive.&nbsp; The Ethiopian with a truckload of gold may be able to bribe officials, taxi drivers -- someone, somewhere! -- to get him where he needs to go.&nbsp; He might already have money outside the country.&nbsp; On the other hand, food tends to spoil.&nbsp; So gold has an obvious advantage over food in being a medium of exchange, even in some extreme examples.&nbsp; Also, these examples seem to imply that food and gold are mutually exclusive.&nbsp; It is likely the person living in a vulnerable area with a large amount of gold has a large stash of nonperishable food, since they both fit under survivalism or just thinking ahead.</p><p><br /></p><p>To be honest, the idea that you &quot;can&#039;t eat gold (or silver)&quot; just seems like a fluoridated-brain argument.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in