GIMP Gate

I saw another article today that mentioned something in passing about libertarians wanting to go back on the gold standard, preppers hoarding gold, etc, and the thing that I don't understand is - why do people think that gold will be valuable in an apocalyptic / post-apocalyptic scenario?

The idea seems to be that paper money is a fiat currency and therefore won't be worth anything when society collapses (not to mention that hardly anyone carries any paper money these days!), which is probably true, or close enough. Therefore you should put your money into gold, which will still be valuable.

But it seems to me that gold in this context is effectively just another form of currency, a medium of exchange - gold itself doesn't have any real use that I know of beyond a) looking pretty and b) being exchangeable for things of value. Maybe c) there's some electrical stuff that uses tiny amounts of gold I think? So it's only valuable because other people agree that it's valuable, because other people will take it in exchange for other goods or services, because we have culturally agreed that gold is valuable.

I just feel like, you know, after the apocalypse when the survivors are starving and everyone's trying to grow crops or whatever, to quote what is probably Revelations 6:6 (via Larry Norman) "a piece of bread will buy a bag of gold". Or as Peter Blegvad (via Fairport Convention) says, "gold is the lowliest of metals - too soft for serious use; pretty, of course, warm to the touch..."

On the other hand, a lot of different cultures from many parts of the world appear to have agreed that gold is valuable. So what am I missing? Why are you better to put your savings into gold than, I don't know, aluminium or seed stocks or liquid nitrogen or something - anything - that would have actual use-value?