Now that is hilarious! I've never understood the logic behind using metals as a medium of exchange in a survival situation.
I don't think there's any logic to it. It's a fantasy associated with the idea that the US Treasury "never should have gone off the gold standard," i.e., that US currency should, as a matter of law or economic policy, be backed by physical gold reserves. When you couple that idea with the notion that currency could, in theory, become essentially worthless (e.g., hyperinflation, nuclear war, etc.), it's not a huge leap to think that gold or silver could somehow "replace" government-issued currency. But I've never heard a coherent explanation of why people who have things that people want, such as food, clothing and medicine, would trade those things for gold or silver. They would be more likely to want to trade for other things, i.e., direct bartering, without money. BMK
Just recently was coincidentally making a short research in this regard... when cattle was a currency: Pecuniary first appeared in English in the early 16th century and comes from the Latin word pecunia, which means "money." Both this root and Latin peculium, which means "private property," are related to the Latin noun for cattle, pecus. Among Latin speakers (as among many other populations, past and present) cattle were viewed as a trading commodity, and property was often valued in terms of cattle. Pecunia has also given us impecunious, a word meaning "having little or no money," while peculium gave us peculate, a synonym for embezzle. In peculium you might also recognize the word peculiar, which originally meant "characteristic of only one" or "distinctive" before acquiring its current meaning of "strange." Also, to those who believe that Bitcoin provides anonymity - you are in for a big surprise.
Then, probably, he's just playing the game : https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/paul-singer-scams.344467/#post-5094159