Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Darth Reardon; Stentor

” I just weighed roughly a cubic foot of
9mm, which should be close to 0.22 in
weight/volume if not worth, at 60 pounds.
At about $500, that’s $8.31/lb, or 6 tons
per $100,000”

I think you’re forgetting that bullets would spike in value. All consumable goods would. Gold, being unessential to survival, would not.

If you had thousands of unreplaceable rounds, would you so easily sacrifice that for gold? And if gold does maintain value, how do you make change?


40 posted on 11/25/2014 6:07:42 AM PST by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: LevinFan

Yes. I would rather have 30 or 40 pounds of gold, which I can carry with me if necessary, than 30 or 40 tons of ammo which I can’t. The gold is not for short term barter, it’s for long term wealth preservation. Food, fuel, and firearms come first of course, but at a point their value per pound is too low.


41 posted on 11/25/2014 12:44:18 PM PST by Darth Reardon (Is it any wonder I'm not the president?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson