If you take all of the gold and silver worldwide and divide it by the number of people, it only comes out to a few troy ounces per person. That will obviously not sustain industrial civilization where people want to earn more money, receive returns on their investment, etc. If you use them to back up any type of money, whether digital or otherwise, then the exercise is futile because to add more money you inflate the price of precious metals. It's no different from backing up money with nothing. If you keep money supply the same (which is likely one reason for a gold standard, where the price of precious metals is fixed), then that industrial civilization, which operates through for-profit competitive capitalism and thus requires continuous growth, won't be sustained. Finally, all of these points affect any economy that involves state and/or private capitalism, and that includes Russia, China, and Iran.
Looking at history, money with no true backing collapses. The south at the civil war, Germany, Spain, Mexico, us.... It is only a means of exchange for goods and services. the original states here printed their own script. I know Wisconsin does not use it anymore. Not sure about your state. Bitcoin was a good idea trying to get out from under the fiat currencies behind the smoke and mirrors of Central Banks. But it is a ponzi scheme with no backing. It could not be inflated, technically, but it could not be sustained as it was started. The powers that be are working on a currency that they can CONTROL more effectively. We shall see. I am fine. How are you?
Germany, Spain, and Mexico have not collapsed since even when they used money with no backing. Before that, money was backed by gold, which has no practical value except as physical money. Scrip doesn't involve backing. The states that used it didn't collapse after they let go of it. For example, Wisconsin didn't collapse. Bitcoin is basically based on electricity used to run hardware to create digital currency. That means it's also not backed by anything. What about inflating money? That's been going on for centuries. Here's why, and in relation to gold: Gold was used in the same way as feathers, rocks with carvings, gems, coral, and other things used as money in various groups, but it had several advantages needed for ever-growing groups: rarity, difficult to counterfeit, and very durable. Beyond that, gold was worthless for armor, tools, and weapons. Merchants used it for trade, but as trade grew, found it impractical and even dangerous to bring around large quantities of gold. So they put in banks which were used to secure it for a price. Later, merchants found it more convenient to just transfer ownership of gold to each other for trade using bank notes. At the same time, bankers noticed that most of the gold wasn't being used, and since many borrowers needed more credit and there wasn't a lot of gold available, lent them to other merchants who needed credit using bank notes. And thanks to bank secrecy (most merchants didn't want others to know how much they had in banks, and bankers protected them as part of banker-client relationships), bankers could issue more bank notes than there was gold. And that's the story of modern capitalism. LOL. My point is that it wasn't just the powers that be that are involved but all of us. Bankers could lend more thanks to bank secrecy, which all of us who have money in banks want as well because we don't want others investigating our wealth. Since there's not enough gold and silver worldwide, and since we don't want to use both for trade for security reasons, then we use bank notes or even electronic transfers because money, as you put it, is meant to be only a medium of exchange. And since it also wasn't practical to use even paper currency and coins for large transactions, then we (workers, customers, merchants, bankers, etc.) also preferred money in electronic format.
It's irony that goes both ways: gold can't be eaten but is far durable than food, while food is critical because it can be eaten but isn't durable as a storage of wealth.
There is more than enough food and water resources for everyone on the earth, but those who are greedy and shellfish want more , want more, want more, want more, want more... without end. When they control it as they aim to, everyone opposed to them will maybe be given two options, submit, or die.
I was referring to store of wealth, not trade. The value of sacks of food is equivalent to a few ounces of gold. The former won't last but are needed while the latter is almost indestructible (which is why it's used as currency) but can't be eaten.
For availability of resources, one can look at ecological footprint vs. biocapacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint Some say that ecological footprint is flawed because it's understated.
Gold has been used for currency for centuries although more a precious metal in the BC era. What destroys nations is uncontrolled immigration, babbling cultures battling over rulership. Happen to Rome, people get wealthy and lazy bring in foreign workers and byre bye nation. Nothing new under the sun.
I partially agree with you on this. Some environments are being destroyed and will take years to recover if at all.
But the world population that time was very small. Today, if you divide the total amount of gold and even silver across the current population, it only comes out to a few troy oz. per person. Also, during exploration of the New World, there wasn't enough gold available, while merchants preferred using bank notes. So banks issued more notes than there was gold. In short, the very reasons for collapse involved more than just immigration or even "babbling cultures." Today, the notional value of all credit worldwide is around $1.2 quadrillion, and that of all gold and silver around $3-4 trillion.
A nation without borders is not a nation. A nation that allows it citizenry to be replaced by non-assimilating uninvited illegal migrants is no longer a nation either. If you don't agree with your nation being changed into something totally different then you're a racist, yet others can be proud of their nation, ancestors and culture EXCEPT European Americans. Are they evil brown eyed racist devil's? Of course not, only one race can be a racist. Personally I don't know any racist or bigot's. Do you? Why don't some liberals move out of their house and give it to the less advantaged, not going to happen they just give away other people's money and assets. Want respect give respect. Can you just imagine me going to S.America or any nation and getting in the streets of that nation demanding they take care of me? Imagine Saudi Arabia, Iran, China or Russia allowing demands from illegals or legals.
I did not mean that the countries collapsed--the currencies. Maybe you recall (60s?) when Mexico revamped its currency 100 old pesos for1 new one? Germany earlier than that and Spain earlier than that---Rome... I am happy you are happy with electronic money with no backing. I have some odd investments and some hard investments like rental property and metals and livestock and a garden. The government has made laws to take it all at a whim. And now they have passed a bill, to take guns, in the House of Congress, running off to take vacations prior to elections. The cartels and criminals don't and won't obey the law and if the presently law abiding don't obey, they will be thrown into prison. Millions of guns out there.