Chasing the Gold Standard


"Why doesn't any government have a gold standard?"

Shimmering metals—a "barbaric relic" or the best means of assuring a stable monetary system and preventing governments from inflating by printing press.

Why doesn't any government have a gold standard? Because there was too much "money" and power to be gained by going to fiat currency. Despite the obvious advantages geopolitically why isn't anyone doing more than flirting very tentatively with the idea of money that is backed unit for unit with gold or silver? Because governments don't want to give up the power they have or fear that cutting back on so-called "safety nets" would lead to their destruction.

I doubt that the Feds could have managed a penny on the dollar even before the stupefying debt incursion of the last 18 months–and we have only their unverified word on how much physical gold is on hand.

Nations can—and must, by Constitution—adopt a strict gold standard, and neither print fiat "money" nor rack up vast foreign or internal debt.

Our Constitution states specifically that "money" shall consist of gold and silver coins we mint ourselves. You can look up the "for profit corporation dba the State of Texas" and see what our financial position is with Dun and Bradstreet. . .Our Constitution, like others, forbids taxing earnings or heads, but we can make it stick when others can't.

Our money will be "good as gold" because it will be gold. True, for convenience there may be paper currency, but it will say "redeemable for the equivalent in precious metals," not "Federal Reserve Note." Your $100 dollar bill is an IOU you cannot count on collecting; if we had one, it would be worth roughly a tenth of an ounce of gold today, tomorrow, and for decades to come.

Related Articles

Get Our Streetwise Reports Newsletter Free

A valid email address is required to subscribe