In days gone by the US dollar WAS actually backed by a physical amount of gold or silver which was held in a vault somewhere. The bank note was basically a promise from the government/treasury to pay the bearer their share of that gold/silver. Hence it did have value back then as the notes were underpinned by real assets. Of course the fraudulent bankers did away with all of that years ago. — Pilgrim

As I recall Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. I believe that was to avoid the huge bill Johnson ran up while trying to have the Vietnam war AND the Great Society programs at the same time.

I agree that the current system is just a ponzi scheme that is inevitably going to collapse at some point. When that happens it will likely unfold with lightning speed.

This three hour documentary about the Federal Reserve explains the issue well. Very educational, worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maC7phpUVno

if you haven’t already, look up rai stone currency on the island of Yap.

I think money is just a yardstick for value. It only has value insofar as it can accurately or, rather, adequately, compare two different valuable objects.

I was wondering how a world without money would look like but that's a stupid question because money is just an expression of value and as long as value exists, and it will, money, the most convenient expression of it, will naturally follow.

What was not modeled was the effect of say 2000-3000 nuclear blasts followed by massive firestorms throwing many, many tons of soot, combustion products, pulverized minerals (concrete, brick, etc.), and other matter very high into the atmosphere--much the way a big volcano eruption does. The amount of sun-reflecting matter would be enough to lower global temperatures for several years. It would NOT be a glaciating event. It would be several -- maybe 10 -- global, long winter seasons, followed by short frost filled springs, summers too short to grow much, leading into short frost filled autumns, and then back into "old fashioned winter".

The sudden cooling wouldn't kill people directly as much as it would starve billions. — Bitter Crank

Actually the "nuclear winter" theory is a bit controversial and somewhat disputed. Of course there are things like weapons targeting policies, fire standards in modern cities, nuclear warheads being nowdays smaller etc. but let's not get into those.

One very unlucky moment for the "nuclear winter" proponents was the Gulf War. Before the war they speculated that if Iraq would set ablaze the Kuwaiti oilfields, the effect would be global or at least a regional "nuclear winter" or "nuclear autumn" would happen. In the 1980's it was estimated by some scientists that that 100 oil refinery fires would be sufficient to bring about a small scale, but still globally deleterious nuclear winter. When the Gulf war was ongoing, Carl Sagan gave this kind of interview to the Baltimore Sun (on January 23rd 1991):

Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan says Saddam Hussein's orders to torch Kuwaiti oil wells, if carried far enough, could unleash smoke clouds that would disrupt agriculture across South Asia and darken skies around the world.

"You need a very small lowering of the average temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere to have serious consequences for agriculture," Sagan said.

Scientists in Maryland and Colorado say such a disaster would require fires at hundreds of wells burning for months, but they agreed the potential exists in Kuwait for a "very catastrophic" environmental event.

Sagan and UCLA scientist Richard Turco have compared the potential for disaster with the 1815 explosion of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia. That event sent enough ash and debris into the sky to make 1816 the "year without summer" in the United States and caused crop failures in other parts of the world.

And what happened? 600 oil wells were set ablaze and the fires continued to burn 8 months until the last was put out. And nothing of the sort that Sagan and others predicted happened. The oil fire hypothesis is crucial for the nuclear winter theory as oil smoke pluming into the stratosphere was thought to serve as a main contributor to the soot of a nuclear winter. This was the central idea of the early climatology papers on the hypothesis: they considered oil fires as a more possible contributor than smoke from cities, as the smoke from oil has a higher ratio of black soot, thus absorbing more sunlight.

Before you think I'm some kind of climate denier or some anti-science conspiracist, the simple phenomenon here is that to make the most dire forecasts about nuclear war being the end of civilization is socially most acceptable. Not agreeing with the most dire forecasts and theories sounds to like being perhaps a proponent of nuclear war. If it's not a mass extinction event, doesn't then this kind of talk get us closer to nuclear weapons being used? That's the logic of the discourse.

And coming back to the actual topic of this thread, such catastrophic predictions about the effects of a global monetary collapse follow similar thinking. Because if one estimates that if/when the US defaults on it's debt and we would have a dollar crisis and it wouldn't be a catastrophic event and likely would be over in a few years, doesn't that then make the Trump administration or any other administration to think "Hmm, that might not be a bad idea"? And of course it catches the interest of people in the net if the economic future is portrayed in the most dire light. That we aren't facing your average economic crises in the future, but a total collapse.

Interesting about the Kuwait fires. But you know, when the FAA grounded all flights over the United States on 911, the loss of all of the contrails that the thousands of flights leave behind had an immediate effect on temperatures of about 2º C--warming the air in the day (less reflected sun light) and cooling at night (less of a blanket on heat escaping).

This was not so obvious that it was noticed at the time. A U Wisconsin researcher discovered the effect when reviewing temperature records during the week after 9/11. The effect was strongest along the east coast and in the midwest where air traffic is heaviest. When air traffic resumed, the effect promptly disappeared.

Some of us enjoy contemplating total destruction at a comfortable distance.

A somewhat bad event just doesn't have enough drama to it. I was not personally inconvenienced by the 2008 crash, and I was somewhat disappointed in the lack of riots in Hong Kong, Tokyo, London, and New York. Not so much as a rock thrown through a boutique's window. The coverage of Fukushima and Chernobyl, was quite satisfying.. Not too close, and lots of dire consequences forecast.

People who do not have an arsonist's bone in their bodies still enjoy watching a big fire, especially if people are not dying in it. And people who have nothing much to lose can get excited about the crises of fiat currencies.

I perceive money as a representation of my life sacrifice almost in a quasireligious sense. I suffer so that I may receive an empty representation of that life which is lost.

When I'm paid by various entities I construct a model of suffering. For example I attempted suicide during my college years because the suffering was so grandiose and I was miserable, uncertain that I had made the right choice, wonder if it was worth it. I got on a sub list which leads me to some economic benefits. Thus my suffering in college is justified by this job.

Oddly the amount I'm paid is not correlated to the levels of stress I am exposed to. Rather it seems to reflect how much income I protect for the rich. As a cashier, my raise is not correlated to stress endured but rather asset protection. If I check bags and carts for missed merchandise or get someone on a loyalty card I am more valuable.

At the point where I am paid I get to think about how much my suffering is worth and then justify consumption options based on my perception of what my suffering is worth even if it is not a lit in the eyes if others I get to buy whatever I want at this point. If I don't have a lot, my suffering is worth little, so I choose the box wine over the cirk wine. At this point I get to sun because I have suffered, I get to buy my robe or save for that car, and access the representations of my worth. Then when I run out, I return to my suffering again, sin, and forgiveness through pain, get to sin again.

A somewhat bad event just doesn't have enough drama to it. — Bitter Crank

Above all, a somewhat bad event lacking that drama simply doesn't sell.

Hence it did have value back then as the notes were underpinned by real assets. — Pilgrim

Is not the value of the gold or silver merely a perceived value just as with paper currency? A "real asset' is primarily something essential to support life, and secondarily something essential to support a minimally bearable life; such primary things as food, water and basically adequate materials for clothing shelter, and secondary things such as better materials for comfortable clothing and comfortable shelter, and so on.

It's my first entry, so excuse my rash contribution.
Well, money is a promise by the issuing bank (or state) to surrender a certain good (usually gold) as soon as the owner claims it. So what makes it valuable is the general value of the promised good and the ability of the issuer to actually give it to you (generally speaking) when you present it to him. On the other hand, it makes transactions much faster and easier because I can simply use money as a substitute for the good itself.
Having said this, I do not see how else this question could be answered. I can't list everything that affects the actual value of paper money, because basically everything can affect the value of money. But let's say your question goes beyond our usual definition of money, I mean not just paper money, but money in a broader sense. Since gold has no intrinsic value and is sought after solely for its exchange value, we could also call it money. However, it is not issued by any bank or a state. So where does the value of gold come from? This seems to me to be a chicken or egg problem.

. Since gold has no intrinsic value and is sought after solely for its exchange value, we could also call it money. — DuRondeuil

Have metals no intrinsic value? At least they are quite useful. Gold as a metal that is inert, never rusts and is very malleable and is resistant to most acids would have many more uses than today, if it wouldn't be so rare. And this rarity makes it expensive (as there would be that demand). Hence if gold would be as common as lets say aluminum, there would be a multitude of things where we would use gold.

Paper money is backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing agency or government.
In the U.S. paper money is no longer backed by gold or silver. I have not noticed that has been an impediment to economic development or the use of dollars as a medium of exchange.
Of course one invests in Venezuelan bolivars at their own risk.
U.S. dollars are in demand for a reason, followed by Euros and the British pound. It has to do with the nature of government and the economies in these countries.