This is something that has bothered me in the past. I will be talking about how it is a good idea to have some cash around and someone will inevitably say “that cash would be worthless in a hyperinflationary economic collapse” or talking about PM’s and they would say “you can’t barter with PM’s during the Mad Max end of the world scenario I envision”. The implication is that since a given thing is not useful during that one specific event it isn’t useful at all. I am just coming to see this train of though clearly today.
The issue is simple. That something is not useful for X scenario does not mean it isn’t useful overall which is the implication of the above mentioned paraphrased quotes. Look at it like this. A Glock 17 is a poor substitute for toilet paper but that doesn’t mean it is not useful. Does the ridiculousness of that sentence explain the foolishness of this train of thought? You get a thing or learn a skill not for what it doesn’t do, but what it does.
Part of the problem is folks getting tunnel vision on one scenario. For some reason it is usually a very specific one and unlikely one. The guy who is worried that $500 in small bills would lose their value if hyperinflation hit is so fixated on that one thing that he discounts numerous, far more likely, scenarios where having some cash would be useful. Also he fails to see that there is a far higher chance that he will be able to use that cash to buy goods and services in numerous other situations than that it will go up in proverbial hyperinflationary smoke.
My point isn’t that you need to think or do like I do. Different folks have different concerns and at the end of the day we all pays our money and takes our chances. My point is that you need to look at the big picture, not just one possible scenario.
Don’t get tunnel vision.