[roenxi]

I've got no particular clue. But if the plan is to assume things happen slowly over 50 years then that is a risky plan. If things play out like in the 1900s, we could see an entire world war play out over 5 years and that'd likely break the US dollar. Or some similar shock. We still don't really understand the impacts of the COVID pandemic and what that is doing in China.

> Money in mattress?

The response to every crisis the US has had for the last 3 decades is to print and borrow increasingly large amounts money. And they are probably the most responsible fiscal controller around at the moment.

If you see that changing for some reason then sure, maybe money under the mattress could help. I don't expect that strategy to change myself, and the last thing I'd want under my mattress is money.

[nonethewiser]

The problem is that you have to pick an alternative. The default is probably cash, because that's how you get paid. If you can't even make an argument for an alternative then I think the overwhelmingly historically best option is the obvious decision. Gold is something people often make an argument for in this case but it's historical returns are pretty bad.

[roenxi]

I can make an argument for anything being better than cash including a massive tinned baked bean stockpile. It is quite hard to do worse than cash.

> Gold is something people often make an argument for in this case but it's historical returns are pretty bad.

I don't follow, gold has been making pretty reasonable returns for about 20 years now and has been a far superior option to cash. What don't you like about it?

[bee_rider]

What does investing with possible WW3 taken into account look like? Heavy on canned food, bullets, and remote real estate I guess? Assuming nuclear weapons don’t just magically vanish.