What is best for the individuals and what is best for national and international economies? Also, will the cash be safest in banks or is it best to have cash on hand for long term emergencies?
2007-01-12 16:14:31 · 7 answers · asked by anybody 3 in Social Science ➔ Economics
Instead of gambling on one scenario you need to hedge your bets and do a little bit of everything. Some cash on hand, some cash in the bank, some thought out investments, and maybe even some invested in gold, silver etc.
It is quite possible you will need straight cash for up to a week before you have bank access.
2007-01-12 21:08:08 · answer #1 · answered by JuanB 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on the type of disaster you are referring to.
If you are talking a toronado taking out a town, it would me much better to have your money in a bank. Chances are, you will be able to take the money out via ATM if you bank at a large bank or you could take it out at another branch (if you bank at a small, local bank, I am not sure how access to money would work if the bank was taken out).
Having cash on hand is typically a bad idea as it can be lost too many ways. It can be stolen, burned, blow away, or destroyed, thus making it worthless to you.
If you are talking a natural disaster that would bring down the economy of all countries (asteroid collision, nuclear war, Y2K type things), cash will pretty much be worthless. Throughout time, the universal monetary instrument has been gold. A dollar is only worth the word of the government. If the government collapsed or doesn't exist, the money would be worthless. Gold on the otherhand is a peculiar object as it is desired by most cultures, giving it value regardless of the state of various economies.
Having money invested is a coin toss. The downfall to most investments is that access to money is much slower than from a bank. Investments can become unpredictible in the event of natural disasters, especially on a large scale.
Once again, if you are talking Armegeddon type disasters, most investment vehicles would be worthless. If the entire population is worried about surviving nuclear winter, who is going to buy your AT&T stock from you? Once again, if the natural disaster is isolated to a small area, then having your money invested is as good as anything else, as long as you can access it.
2007-01-13 00:27:02 · answer #2 · answered by Slider728 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be safer to have your money in the bank. In the United States (I am unaware if other countries have similar things, but I think they would), we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures each of a bank's depositor's up to $100,000. In the event that a natural disaster would cause a bank to close permenantly, you would still be able to have some money left over. However, if you have just cash, there is a strong chance that the natural disaster would ruin whatever cash you had.
As far as governments go, they don't usually deal in cash. Most government transactions are done electronically, so their money wouldn't be lost.
2007-01-13 00:20:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would try to have money in the bank. If the disaster were to be bad enough then you might not be able to get the money if it were invested. Then after reading the question again it might not be a bad idea to have some money on hand.
2007-01-13 00:24:08 · answer #4 · answered by karen v 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Natural disasters are unpredictable, but if it's an earlier warning then bank is the safest place if the bank is out of the disastrous land...
2007-01-13 05:04:27 · answer #5 · answered by Prasun Saurav 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's always better to have cash. If our world economic system were to crash how many banks do you think will come up with all that money that we have in them? That's why it's always good to have some cash on hand and your pantry full.
2007-01-13 00:27:23 · answer #6 · answered by Serinity4u2find 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How about having fresh water and food,you can't eat money or drink it.
2007-01-13 00:31:53 · answer #7 · answered by Rainy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋