CaptainPatch wrote:Using food goods is still essentially barter, but with "goods that have a higher degree of marketability" as they said in the Econ video. It's eminently doable, but I wonder what would be gained by using such a system. You would still have a situation where something like a suit of Power Armor would cost several hundred sacks of rice. A tradesman's "cash register" would be a grain silo. And every time harvest time rolls around, the currency has a cycle of hyperinflation. (If you didn't, that would = poor harvest = famine = spending "money" would lead to starvation.)
Well as far as I know, hystorically there are precedents of using grains of various kinds as means of paying taxes (Egypt, Japan, Russia). I also recall reading a translation of some 14th century spanish text where the price of knight's equpment was quite literally quoted in cows, so your example with power armor is actually valid. Also, as far as I understand, in preindustrial Europe an annual trade fairs would take place right after harvest, so that food producers could exchange excess food for other "stuff". Again, prooving that non-perishable food is a good trade medium/money substitute. I am not saying it's the best solution, but it's better than bottle caps, ammunition, or value points in my opinion. As far as hyper inflation is concerned, I think that psychology of a small community and their sens of value is quite different from "national scale" of post WWI world with it's commodity markets, telegraphs and global transportation. Simply put there is an "inertia of value" if you will-"if I bought a plow for two saks of grain last year-this is my water mark for next several years, unless some very drastic event is gonna alter my preception of plows value"