Your definition of store of value is correct. However, I think it pays to think about the many different futures and the probabilities.
In your example of one possible future, Gold and Bitcoin would still be exchanged outside the devasted region. A person could go to a country that is still functional is the theory. Whether this is practical or realistic is up to the individual.
There is no one thing an individual or group of individuals can do to be resilient to all possible futures.
There are those that follow the âguns and ammoâ principal. That guns and ammo will protect whatever it is they have to eat or allow them to take whatever it is they need. There are those that have been working to be self reliant. Living off grid and raising their own food.
For each of these ideas, I can come up with realistic scenarios where the solution doesnât fit the problem.
Even for those with the insight and courage to move to a country that has a lower probability of disaster, which I think is the best solution in terms of probability, there are risks. Doug Casey often tells the story about a man living in Europe that saw WWII coming and decided to move to a place that the war would not touch. He moved to Guadalcanal. Whether true or not, it illustrates that there are no guaranteed solutions. Just probabilities.
In King Rat, the Clavell novel based on his POW experience, cigarettes are valuable. Not because everyone smoked, but because enough people did smoke that they could be counted on as tradable. Thus, the value doesnât have to be directly applicable to the person in need of something (I need food in your scenario).
Even in the worst war torn starvation scenarios, there are people (typically warlords) that want something they can exchange outside of necessities. They steal the food provided by the NGOs and what do they do with it? They somehow use it to fund their enterprise which includes buying weapons not made in the country. My guess is that they operate like a pawn shop. They will take anything of value outside the given region.
More economically useful idea: back currency with production capacity directly, tradable nominal market-valued âmachine hoursâ redeemable for use of factory equipment, issuable by anyone with factory equipment, spendable by anyone who wants to make goods with that equipment. This works particularly well when networks of co-located machine owners collectively have the capability to make more machines and the loans, space rental and insurance for the machines can be paid in machine-hours.
10 pp. white paper / economic plan available: âWide-Ownership Workshop Industrial Ecology Summaryâ
Vision: to encapsulate a manufacturing base in a minimum investment, to make factories that can economically produce factories and almost any other product, to create automated market-based mechanisms to run such a factory complex, routing tooling and partially finished work among a network of hundreds or thousands of owners of co-located equipment bought with equipment-secured loans, so to distribute the profits of real capital and sustain demand, while also eliminating the succession of profits, marketing and tax markup of middlemen.
That sounds vaguely analogous to the âRentenmarkâ issued in Germany after the hyper-inflation caused by the nefarious Treaty of Versailles. The Rentenmark was backed by productive land â the limited supply of which removed from the authorities any ability to print more of them.
The nice feature of a âmachine hoursâ currency is that it would refocus society on the idea that a sustainable economy depends on production â not on consumption, as economists would have us believe. Production Precedes Consumption!
Donald Trump announces he is accepting presidential campaign donations in cryptocurrency.
Zurich University of Applied Sciences is introducing Europeâs first masterâs program dedicated solely to 