[geofft]

But that would then imply that the five-hundred-dollar bill has value, because it can be exchanged reliably and easily for value.

The goldbugs, as far as I know, don't favor gold because it's shiny; they favor it because it's physical and it's historically been popular in so many cultures as a medium of exchange for things of real, inherent value (food, labor, housing, etc.). I think a definition of "value" that roots gold as having value because it's gold would be so self-referential as to be useless.

[wolfgke]

> But that would then imply that the five-hundred-dollar bill has value, because it can be exchanged reliably and easily for value.

No this is IMHO no valid implication. Say, goldbugs don't believe that money is something other than fiction. But they do believe that at least for the next few days this fiction will not break down in the society: This is enough time to buy gold. But they are not sure how much longer the "illusion" will hold up (say, for a month?).

So the right question to ask (for the goldbug) is "only" what will happen earlier:

a) The money illusion breaks down? or b) I've converted the earned money into gold?

[geofft]

OK, fair. You're effectively defining "value" as "can be exchanged reliably and quickly for other things with/requiring value indefinitely". So the goldbug assumption is that there's a constant and nontrivial risk of people no longer accepting fiat money in the near term, but there is little to no risk of people not accepting gold. I think we can dispute the data informing this worldview, but that's a self-consistent worldview. Thanks.

[AnimalMuppet]

There have been historical incidents where that worldview was correct. To say that such circumstances will never occur again seems optimistic. (To say that they will occur as soon or as often as the goldbug expects seems unrealistically pessimistic.)