Quote:
That's just it. You are the ONLY one making a declaration that one would "win out". Not me. What does that mean, exactly, to "win out"?
If gold, silver, copper, nickel, platinum, iridium, and any other hard specie that joined to compete in the free currency market party, and they all floated against one another as competing specie, with no artificial barriers to entry, each would finds its own exchange value. Neither Thiers NOR Gresham's Laws would be in effect -- even against former fiat currencies (FRN's, YUAN, EUROS). Not even they would necessarily be driven out of circulation. They would just find their market values along with the rest.
Each hard specie's exchange value would be different from the others, and would always fluctuate, but NONE OF THEM would "win out" in terms of one being so preferred that the rest are driven completely out of circulation. For that bullshit to happen you need some form of government interference. Otherwise, that would be like saying that among MasterCard, Visa, Diners, American Express, travelers checks, etc., (or name a list of different country currencies) one of them would "win out". And yet...there they all are.
Of course, one specie may become more popular, or more commonly used than the rest. Is that what you mean? If so, then I would argue that both silver and copper are slam dunks--with plenty of historical evidence to back it up. More people have always bought more silver than gold, only because it is more affordable and convenient in its divisible forms. It's not called the "poor man's gold" for nothing.
Yes all those things listed will have exchange value with one another, but if the industrial need for all of those, except for gold, dropped, the value would drop as well. This is NOT the case for gold. Sure silver could be priced at $10,000 per ounce right now and be used solely as money, but it is not. That place is and has been reserved for gold. If you want to gamble that this will change in the future, then that is fine.