There seems to be some doubt about the possible role of gold within
a total societal collapse. At a fundamental level, food, ie calories,
in a defined format are money. But this form of money is not very useful.
It does not assist communication of needs and wants across a network
to any great degree. In a near-total collapse therefore something similar
to the old trimetallic currency would quickly become a form of liquidity,
and though it could be cigarettes, or whiskey, of tinned sardines,
a mixture of gold and bitcoin could work together given enough
infrastructure is retained.

Which brings me to the subject of Liquidity: MA only partially understands
its importance judging from his posts. Put simply, once Liquidity goes,
we _will_  have to fall back to gold and bitcoin. Further, it will be very
difficult to re-create the liquidity once the confidence that supports it is
destroyed. (I hesitiate to judge - it is more of an assessment.)

I have been thinking about Hayek these last few days: I seem to recall
it was his advice that kept the UK out of the EuroZone. You have to wonder
why, despite all the warnings, did they go ahead with that? Perhaps
the present march to Fourth Reich is no accident.

Hayek had much to say in his "The Denationalisation of Money" that is
relevant today: not only for QE, but also for alternative currencies.
His argument [p93-106] is that Central Banks are, shall I say, barbaric
relics, whose existence is necessary because of government mandated
monopoly of issuing currency. Once alternative currencies are in place
and are allowed to compete on a level playing field, Central Banks
are an unnecessary encumbrance.

Much of the dysfunction within the money markets, the financial and the
political arenas can be traced back to Central Bank interventions - as
can be seen quite clearly in the control of Greece.