Gold can be made into currency, aka a coin. As can silver or bronze or zinc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement as an example of what happens when gold ends up a currency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement as an example of what happens when gold ends up a currency.
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.
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.
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.
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...