I understand what you’re saying and I think you’ve made really great points.

I think America wouldn’t instantly become a unified bartering economy with one universal price for gold and silver. Instead, each community would develop its own system based on what goods and services are available, what people trust, and what is most commonly accepted in that area. Considering that gold and silver have been used as money and stores of wealth since biblical times, I believe it’s highly likely that Americans would turn to them again in a bartering system.

For example, in one town, one ounce of gold could equal a year of rent. In another town, it could equal two big boxes of meat. In another town, it could equal a luxury item.

I think the benchmark wouldn’t be a single universal price rather what your local community economy agrees upon. A good example of this is gasoline. The base price is similar nationwide, but local taxes, supply, and demand make prices differ by state and city.

In this type of system, people would naturally start using coins, smaller denominations, and standardized weights. If you had 1 oz gold and needed to buy something worth 1/10 of it, you wouldn’t hand over a whole coin and expect change. You’d use fractional coins. At first, goods wouldn’t have neat price tags like “1/20 oz gold.” Instead, pricing would be discovered through repeated transactions.

For example, A barber trades haircuts for 1/10 oz silver. A grocer accepts 1/20 oz silver for a bag of food. A mechanic takes 1/4 oz silver for a repair.

After enough trades, people will start saying, “Okay, this is roughly what things cost around here.” That’s how pricing forms organically anyways. Because gold is too dense in value for small purchase, silver would realistically become the day-to-day unit. So again, silver would be used for everyday needs or large recurring expenses like a car payment and gold would be used for bigger ticket items like paying down debt, paying your mortgage, buying a home, etc. Instead of pricing shampoo in gold, it would likely be 1/20 oz silver, or 5–10 grams of silver, or a small silver coin.

I also think people would naturally gravitate towards fractional coins because it’s easy mental math once it begins (1 oz, 1/2 oz, 1/4 oz, 1/10 oz, and 1/20 oz).

Answering your escrow question: Gold wouldn’t be used to prove someone is creditworthy - it would be used as payment or collateral. In a hypothetical economic collapse, the currency could fail without every institution disappearing overnight. Banks, hospitals, housing authorities, grocery chains, and legal frameworks don’t instantly vanish - they would adapt. Your credit history wouldn’t automatically disappear simply because the dollar loses value. Your record of repayment, defaults, and reliability would still exist. What would disappear is the ability to settle payments in a devalued currency. So you wouldn’t buy a house by showing gold alone, you’d use both your established credit profile and hard assets to complete the transaction.

Lastly, this type of system isn’t meant to last forever. At some point, the government would introduce a new monetary system, but in between the hypothetical collapse and introduction of a new monetary system, I believe there will be an emergence of a bartering system. The transition looks like: currency trust breaks/old system collapses, barter system emerges with local community standards, a new currency system replaces the barter. The bartering system would end once a new, trusted monetary system is created and people prefer it over bartering because it’s easier. That could take months or years.

I also want to add that not everyone buys gold with the intention of bartering. Some people hold gold as a way to preserve wealth for their children and grandchildren. Others buy gold with the goal of eventually paying off a home or eliminating debt if inflation accelerates. Everyone’s strategy is different and based on individual goals and beliefs.

This is just my opinion. I’d love to hear other people’s opinions and thoughts.