Don't play the guilt by (imagined) association card on me, Bobert. You do that every time you mention Lyndon LaRouche, one of your favorite whipping boys or monsters under the bed. I have no association with Lyndon LaRouche, he isn't my hero, I never heard of him till you brought him up various times in regards to something I had posted about monetary policy. Lots of other people agree that currency should be backed up by and redeemable in an official amount of something real...not just Mr LaRouche.

I looked him up and found that I agree with him about some things....and I disagree with him about others. And there are others where I just don't know what I think about it.

I could say that about almost anybody. For you to invoke his name to me as if I subscribed to his entire philosophy is as unhelpful as if I were to invoke somebody else's name that way in regards to you. It implies that he and I are alike. Not necessarily so.

Backing up the dollar with gold and silver was considered "realistic" for a very looooong time. And it worked. What makes you think it's unrealistic to do it now?

I'll tell you why they won't do it. Because they have created trillions of dollars out of thin air just to enrich themselves and maintain a tottering pyramid scheme a little longer....and NO amount of real stuff could be found to back it up, because they've basically done what a counterfeiter does with a printing press. They created MONEY without doing a lick of actual work to earn it. That makes it worthless. It takes work to mine and refine gold and silver, and that's why a currency that's redeemable in set amounts of those metals is automatically worth what it claims to be worth.

You're making excuses for a criminal financial system and saying "there's no other way to do it". That's what they say too. But they're rich. And you're not. Cos YOU don't have the Fed's printing press! ;-) If you did, you could buy all the pot in West Virginia...for the time being.