The coin is made of silver. That's totally different than American currency, which has no intrinsic value.
You say this as if silver has "intrinsic" value. It (and gold) have no intrinsic value to humans I would argue, and are simply assigned arbitrary psychological value. They could have industrial or even aesthetic uses, but those are culturally defined and not something innate to the material.
IMHO the only things with "intrinsic" value for humans are air, shelter (especially against 'extreme' temperatures), water, and food.
The value of the dollar derives from the might of the American government and the productivity of its economy. A silver coin is worth its weight in silver even if the government and economy that issued it long stopped existing. The dollar is worthless without the American government and American economy backing it.
Assuming the culture you are in has the means to reach those temperatures. A silver coin may be no more than a shiny trinket to those cultures that do not have that (level of) technology.
(I am reminded of the Coca-Cola bottle in the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy.)
> The dollar is worthless without the American government and American economy backing it.
Experience with past currencies suggests the use of coinage can outlive the original creator, and even for completely different purposes (in the case of physical objects):
Silver has a slightly lower melting point than copper, so any culture that has reached a bronze age level of knowledge can handle it (or even just one with half decent pottery kilns).
The first really good British coins, with totally uniform diameter, thickness, and design, milled edges, and so on, were made by (once again) Isaac Newton. There had been coins of a sort for well over a thousand years by then, but they basically sucked. They were essentially raw lumps of metal that had a design hand-hammered into them.
They looked more like a bad sealing wax impression than anything we'd recognize as a coin today. Identifying a good coin was difficult.
Now I hand him a stack of papers with numbers printed on them. The goat breeder has no use for these papers, but he also had no use for the gold. He'd need to trade them for something. Let's run it all back up the same line and we see it doesn't end at "and now the smelter has something useful" because paper isn't useful to the smelter either... but running the paper through that chain of merchants has proven that there's value attached to the paper. The smelter then recognizes the value of the paper and trades the paper to the miners who supply the metal, because the traders who supply the metal want to buy some goat milk from me and they know I accept this weird paper in exchange for my goat's milk.
That's how currency has worked since the beginning of civilization. Ancient people weren't melting down coins to make something more valuable, they were trading the coins as-is without a worry about how useful the raw materials are. They just needed something anything that everyone agreed had a certain amount of value to it that's also difficult to fake. Gold has no intrinsic value for 90% of all humans on the planet, it's just a way to exchange goods and services based on an arbitrary-but-universally-recognized token.
I’d assume it’s more work to dig up and purify gold ore than make linen paper. Wouldn’t this mean some currencies are inherently more stable?
Gold and silver works great for newer and less technologically advanced civilizations, because it's easier to smelt metal than print new US Dollars on speciality linen paper. It would be easier to lose the ability to smelt metal and then later regain that ability than it is to lose the ability to print USD and try to regain it. But once you reach a certain level of technological sophistication, minting fake gold coins becomes easier than printing new USD and people start to trust the currency less.
So I guess yes, precious metals would be easier to rebuild civilization with because it could be more easily reproduced as technology advances. But no matter what I think every civilization would abandon precious metals as they progressed, because counterfeiting becomes very easy very quickly.
But you have to buy them. You can't buy things with them.
You might be able to barter, if you can find someone who has what you want, and also happens to need some 6 9's pure gallium indium phosphide or whatever.
However, the guy at the corner liquor store is unlikely to give you a bottle of whiskey in exchange for it.
Which may be essentially nothing.
Native Americans (e.g., the Aztecs) liked gold because it was pretty, but did not use it as any kind of medium of exchange. By all accounts they were quite puzzled by the obsession the Spaniards had for it.
Silver and gold are useful as money because they are scarce, durable, and recognizable.
I think you'd find that producing convincing imitation U.S. bank notes or even coins is considerably more difficult than you're imagining, especially in a global collapse scenario.
No, actually. The dollar is really quite different than gold or silver.
This is because even after the "american empire" falls, there would still absolutely be people with the ability to replicate dollars very easily, and who would also be willing to do so.
That entity would be whoever owns those US dollar printing presses that are printing the dollars right now.
If the US is in a state of collapse, but people are apparently still accepting US dollars in payment, then there would be a strong incentive for who ever controls those already existing printing presses, to produce more green pieces of paper, and exchange them for goods and services.
The same is not true for good and silver.
Except that most "dollars", or any currency for that matter, are not physical but rather digital values in a computer some place.
The modern "printing press" is a computer located at the central bank of the currency in question (Fed, ECB, etc).
(Technically most money is actually created by private banks through loans and entries in banks' ledgers.)
Ok, that further supports my point then.
If the US is in "collapse" then the people who control that currency will still have a large incentive to digitally "print" more dollars.
Whereas they couldn't similarly print physical gold in the same way.
Note that government-level entities which happen to be enemies of the United States already have a strong incentive to do this, and they've pretty much universally failed. The press is the easy part. The special watermarked paper, the color-shifting ink, the security threads... all of that requires a functioning industrial infrastructure, dispersed over a large geographic region. And that's exactly what would not be available.
If the U.S. goes down, the whole world goes down with it.
Now I'm not an economist, but wasn't the dollar originally Spanish? Perhaps the current US dollar would diminish to nill value, but there's no reason why any future evolution or alternative dollar wouldn't be able to survive without the government or bank that minted it.
Fiat currency has value derived from the faith in the government printing it. Gold has a derivative value in the faith that it will be accepted as a default currency, but also an intrinsic component borne of the relative scarcity as well as material properties having some use.
I may not understand what you’re specifically asking. Intrinsic value is fairly straightforward. A company may have some amount of material worth (machines, intellectual property etc.). The balance of that equity minus their debt is the intrinsic value. After selling all that property and paying off the debt whatever left is the intrinsic value. Similarly, melting down a metal and selling it as a commodity gives the intrinsic value of a currency. A borderline intrinsic value would be a currency that has very little commodity value when divorced from its derivative value (e.g., the paper stock has only a limited marginal value and essential no intrinsic value). Some commodities get most of their worth from intrinsic value (milk, pork-bellies get value from the fact the are food) where fiat currencies has disproportionate derivative value.