People don't seem to understand that money is not much different to a deed that declares your property rights over a house or a plot of land. There is no difference. Whether it is paper or a metal coin, there is no difference since the money is like a legal contract recording how much abstract value you have given to "society" and how much access you have to resources. It is more like a key that opens doors. The problem with believing that money is a commodity is that such a commodity needs to be a master key, capable of opening every door. This ability to open doors is known as "liquidity", but perfect liquidity cannot exist. If you had a door for every point in space time, it is pretty clear that your key from 2024 can't open a door from 2023. It also can't open a door in Brazil when the key was made in the US. Money is always bound in time and space, but gold gives the impression that it is neither.
The debasement is an inevitable fact that those metaphorical doors are closing and opening over time. In fact, the impression that gold bugs give is that the government and general public should force all those doors to stay open at great expense, while they do nothing as if laziness was a virtue that demands compensation.
> money is like a legal contract recording how much abstract value you have given to "society" and how much access you have to resources
Finally, someone who understands money. As opposed to the typical "but my military!", as if no country with a strong military had ever had its currency fail...
I would only emphasize the importance of the scarcity aspect of money, which seems to be a (purposely) forgotten lesson nowadays. It reminds me of the historical importance of the Spanish Price Revolution, which with its 1.2% yearly inflation, nowadays it would be considered laughable.
>>> as if no country with a strong military had ever had its currency fail...
Has there been a widely accepted currency (true currency) that hasn't had military might behind it? Has there been a dramatic military failure that hasn't been followed by currency decline?
Military, state and currency are all interlinked on a pretty deep level.
> Has there been a widely accepted currency (true currency) that hasn't had military might behind it?
Yes, even today, for example, Costa Rica has no military yet they have their own currency. Its Central Bank manipulates its value by buying and selling the currency in the free market, which is what many countries do nowadays (although not always by the same mechanisms).
> Has there been a dramatic military failure that hasn't been followed by currency decline?
Yes, unless by "dramatic military failure" you mean having their economy destroyed, at which point of course the currency fails, but that's because economy destruction leads to currency failure regardless of any military defeats.
However, the better question is: has any country with a strong military ever had its currency fail without any military defeat?
And the answer is yes, plenty, which proves that having a strong military has nothing to do with having a stable currency.
Let's say your currency starts to fail (say, due to hyperinflation)... what is the government going to do with the military to prevent the collapse? Order them to intimidate the market?! That's a completely ridiculous proposition...
The debasement is an inevitable fact that those metaphorical doors are closing and opening over time. In fact, the impression that gold bugs give is that the government and general public should force all those doors to stay open at great expense, while they do nothing as if laziness was a virtue that demands compensation.