Gold standard




Health v medicine


How to collapse an economy 


Fed-up with the Fed 

Beast from Jeckyll Island 

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 


Fractional reserve banking 

Fiat money 

16th amendment not ratified - income tax illegal  

Money myth   

Gold Standard 

Usury / interest 

Fall of civilisations    

Hidden taxation  

Social credit 








Up ] Economic collapse ] Money myth ] The Fed ] Jekyll ] [ Gold standard ]

For   |   against


Journal 22,

Money is the life-blood of society and performs the same function as blood does in your body, carrying food and oxygen to every cell and carrying away the waste products to sustain life. The blood system is actually a transportation system. Money may also be compared to a transportation system, as did Henry Ford:

"The function of money is not to make money but to move goods. Money is only one part of our transportation system. It moves goods from man to man. A dollar bill is like a postage stamp: it is no good unless it will move commodities between persons. If a postage stamp will not carry a letter, or money will not move goods, it is just the same as an engine that will not run. Someone will have to get out and fix it."

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for the rest of the world for you have a sound Constitution) your "engine" was deliberately designed with a fatal flaw which causes it to self-destruct and it can NOT be "fixed". It must be replaced with an engine of proven design but with a modern control system that will enable it to have cruise-control that will enable it to "automatically" adjust to changing power requirements (money volume) in order to maintain a constant speed (money value). If you pursue this analogy further the steps necessary to implement an honest and stable money system become obvious:

First, the unConstitutional and criminal Federal Reserve System must be abolished and its primary function, money creation, taken back by the Congress to whom it belongs, both logically and legally (Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Const.).

Second, the new engine, of proven design, must be a debt-free money system similar to the tally system of England, the scrip issued by the colonies and the U.S. Notes which enabled Lincoln to preserve the Union and which have saved American taxpayers over 100 BILLION dollars in usury which would have been stolen by the ABís [anti-god bankers].

Third, a STANDARD OF VALUE for money must be established as a reference so that any deviation from it may be quickly detected and corrected. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A STANDARD OF VALUE ESTABLISHED FOR MONEY IN THE HISTORY OF MAN!

At this point many will object, thinking, "The Coinage Act of 1791 established a standard of value," or "The Gold Standard Act of 1900 established one". No. What these and the other monetary acts of Congress did was to establish a temporary standard of weight and purity of gold or silver coins called a "dollar".

Their "value" was determined in the market-place by vendors and buyers who bartered them for other commodities. In a relatively static, agricultural economy, they served quite well as money. That is, until the ABís cornered the market on gold, forced it upon the people as the "standard of money" and then, "removed gold from circulation, as far as possible".

The myth that gold or a gold-based money system is the only way to provide stable money should have forever been put to rest when your nation suffered the worst financial panics and depression you ever endured between 1900 and 1934 when you were on a "gold standard". However, suffice it to say that the IDEA behind the premise was good--but the actual manipulation destroyed the validity. Those who continue to promote this alternative today simply do so as either shrewd agents or ignorant (without knowledge) dupes of the ABís. For one thing, as I said before, the gold upon which you once could base a currency is, at any rate, GONE INTO FOREIGN DEPOSIT. YOU IN AMERICA DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH GOLD UPON WHICH TO BASE ANYTHING EXCEPT TO KEEP THE DECEPTION GOING A BIT LONGER--HENCE SOME OF YOU WHO LISTEN AND ACT CAN GET SOME MEASURE OF PROTECTION IF FOR NOTHING ELSE--COLLATERAL EXCHANGE.

One reason that a Standard of Value was never established is that it was considered impossible to do so. Well, we are possibility-thinkers and operators--WE LOVE THAT WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR, WITH GOOD, ALL IS POSSIBLE! After all, every man values everything differently from every other man and also differently at other times and places. Therefore, the first thing necessary to establish a "Standard of Value" is to determine what the general requirements for ALL "standards" are:

First, a standard must have similitude. That is, it must be similar to that which it measures. A standard of weight must have weight, a standard of length must have length, etc.

Second, a standard must have stability. That is, its value must remain constant under all conditions throughout the system which it serves. An inch is exactly the same length whenever and wherever it is used. But watch the bureaucrats--for a true story came out of New York where the legislature wanted to round off the value of "pi" because the fractions were an inconvenience.

Third, a standard must have commonality. That is, everyone in the system must understand and have, or have easy access to, the standard unit. Most everyone in America knows what an inch is and has, or can easily obtain a rule (standard) with which to exactly measure it.


If you compare any commodity, and most especially gold, against these criteria for a monetary standard with which to measure wealth, you find them to be woefully inadequate.

With respect to the first criterion, similitude, there is no relationship whatsoever. The value of gold is determined by its weight and purity. While the price of many commodities (coal, wheat, meat, fruit and---) is determined by weight, the price of manufactured goods bears little, if any, relationship to their weight, the major cost factor being that of "labor".

With respect to the second criterion, stability, you find that gold is only chemically stable, that is, durable. (Is it possible that this word might derive from the Plain of Dura, where the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, first established the Gold Standard?) As a commodity in a free market its price would vary in accordance with the law of "supply and demand". As a controlled commodity, its price has been less stable than that of the stock market, and for the very same reasons.

With respect to the third criterion, commonality, while many people have gold wedding rings and some have gold fillings, very few have any gold coins which could be used as money.

Further, the vast majority of the worldís gold is owned or controlled by the ABís. THINK ABOUT THAT CAREFULLY.

Thus, it is obvious that of these three criteria for ALL standards of measurement, gold and silver meet none of them as a monetary standard.

Incidentally, the "gold bugs" insist that money, in addition to serving as a medium of exchange and measure of value, must also be a store of value, which most of them erroneously refer to as "intrinsic" value. But these are contradictory requirements. Money, in order to serve its function as a medium of exchange, must be kept in circulation and the faster it circulates (called "V" for "velocity") the better it serves that function. If it is "saved" or hoarded, it cannot function as a medium of exchange. This is the reason for the need to continually mint large quantities of pennies, because many people fill jars or "piggy banks" with them as a form of saving, often using them as convenient door stops as the jar fills. A better store of value would be gold. But the best are, in order of priority; storage food, water, fuel, seeds, tools and silver coins.


Since no commodity has all of the criteria to serve as a monetary Standard of Value, what in the world does? 

The price of all things can be, and frequently is, based upon the man-hours of labor required to make them and market them. The price of something is often quoted in terms of the average man-hours of labor required to purchase it, especially in comparisons between different nations or time periods. In fact, this is the conscious or unconscious means by which everyone determines the value of anything to himself; how much of his life "time" must be exchanged for it? Most everyone is already aware of the fact that "Time IS MONEY". Certainly would clear out the garbage and non-producers right away, also--the politicians who spend no time in production of positive goods, for instance, would be quote poor indeed. The ones who could work but refuse, would be soon quite hungry or go into production.


You could arbitrarily establish your monetary standard as one average man-hour of labor, which would be equivalent to setting the cruise-control at, say, 60 mph. This new standard of monetary value should also have a name, so let us call it a "Manny" and its 1% division a "Minn", for obvious reasons. 

How well does a Manny meet the requirements for a standard? Let us compare them and see. First, similitude. Labor time is the primary factor in determining the price of everything and also the value of everything to each person, as already mentioned. Second, stability. There is nothing more stable than time, which remains fixed through all generations and nations. Third, commonality. Nothing is more common among men than time, which is distributed to all men equally; 24 hours a day and you canít take it with you when you leave.

Everyone understands time and virtually everyone has its standard of measurement on his wrist or kitchen wall. You measure and regulate your lives by "time". It is, in attachment to "space", the only separation of the species within the third dimension, so it seems logical to measure progress through that third dimension by your primary commodity--"perceived time". For many things in your dimension, there is no other means of measurement. This REVELATOR, for example. There is no dollar value which you can place on the work required herein to produce this document which is about ten times longer than the scribe had allowed for todayís writing, nor on the experience, discipline, communications, etc., required to study, research, analyse, understand, and solve the problem. The only cost that can be placed on the effort is the TIME involved to accomplish the finished product. Thus, you find that the Manny not only meets all of the requirements for standards in general, but uniquely serves as a monetary Standard of Value.

Protocol 20
From the -
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion 


With us the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death.

Why gold fails the standard
by Joe Bryant
January 2007

The author makes the same mistake as many on the topic of money. Gold is gold it is not money. It , because it is in short supply and in demand it tends to retain its value and as a result is acceptable in exchange for goods and services.

It is true that gold and silver, in fact most metals retain their value, they will retain their value irrespective of who governs because value depends on demand.  The value of fiat-money, like gold, depends on what can be purchased with it and confidence that it will maintain its value.  Fiat money can and has been backed by metal (gold) in the past.

If a country expends the value of its production to purchase gold to back its fiat money where will the money come from to pay its people?   This is a - not possible equation.

The problem with backing fiat  (notes and coins) with equal value in gold or silver is that to do so requires all the money printed to be used to purchase the backing, if this is not the case then not all can be so backed or the backing must be for less than full value of the fiat money.

This leaves no money for people (to allow the proper exchange of goods and services) who do not have gold with which to buy or to sell. It also means that countries that do not have a gold mine do not have access to money (GOLD) and as a result must borrow. The reason most countries are in debt today goes back to the need to have gold or silver with which to trade. A FEW people domiciled in countries like Britain, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and others, plundered the world's gold and as a result now run/rule the world.

God forbid we go back down this track. Australian Gold mines are today owned by foreigners as is the gold they produce, and I bet nobody knows the total amount mined or the total that ends up in foreign ownership.  How would an ordinary Australian GET SUFFICIENT GOLD TO BY A FEED today?

If one is saving,  gold and silver, or a few other metals are the safest bet. But how do ordinary people get gold, fiat or otherwise - by toiling for it - all spent in an effort to survive on a daily basis. 

There is a limited amount of precious metals in the world, if the lot was to be shared around the worlds population how much would each of us have? Enough for a feed - or not?  In any case most of the mined gold and silver is already "owned" - is it suggested we should confiscate it and share it around?

The author speaks about promissory money as if it was superior to fiat money when it is exactly the same, a promise that the cheque, piece of paper or coin will purchase equivalent value after it has been accepted as payment for goods or services supplied or if saved to spend later.

The real test of the value of money is the quantity/quality of goods and/or services it will purchase, no matter the form it takes.  If there is no food to purchase it matters not how much gold you have, at this point a tomato would be worth all the gold in China.

A countries fiat money becomes valueless as a result of shortage of goods and services available for sale by the occupants of that country. NOT BECAUSE IT IS created FROM THIN AIR, but as a result of either no goods or far to much fiat money -  bad management or foreign interference in a countries affairs are two causes - in exactly the same way as if there was far to much gold or silver or oil, - or tomatoes if the countries economy relied on tomatoes.

The author is wrong to discern that fiat/money is different to what he calls promissory/money they are both the same which is a promise to pay in a form that will retain its purchasing power.

All money relies on confidence including gold and silver.

World poverty subsided with the advent of fiat money simply because sufficient could be made from thin air to facilitate the trade required for more people to share - sell their goods and services.

It is imperative that confidence is maintained in the medium of exchange whether it is gold or paper money, or sea shells, and that its production in individual countries reflects demand and supply of those countries and the wider market place.

Precious metals such as gold will never be available in the quantities required for all the people of the world to share in world trade, nor will it ever be fairly distributed between the people of the world. Fiat money will do all the thins required of a medium of exchange if kept out of the hands of the criminals that now own most of the gold and other despots.

Confidence is the key - maintaining it is the challenge.


Gold and Economic Freedom
by Alan Greenspan
21 December 2002

[Editor's note - It may surprise more than a few gold devotees to learn they have an ideological friend in none other than Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan. Starting in the 1950s, in fact, Greenspan was a stalwart member of Ayn Rand's intellectual inner circle. A self-designated "objectivist", Rand preached a strongly libertarian view, applying it to politics and economics, as well as to religion and popular culture. Under her influence, Greenspan wrote for the first issue of what was to become the widely-circulated Objectivist Newsletter. When Gerald Ford appointed him to the Council of Economic Advisors, Greenspan invited Rand to his swearing-in ceremony. He even attended her funeral in 1982.

In 1967, Rand published her non-fiction book, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. In it, she included Gold and Economic Freedom, the essay by Alan Greenspan which appears below. Drawing heavily from Murray Rothbard's much longer The Mystery of Banking, Greenspan argues persuasively in favor of a gold standard and against the concept of a central bank.

Can this be the same Alan Greenspan who today chairs the most important central bank of them all? Again, you might be surprised. R.W. Bradford writes in Liberty magazine that, as Fed chairman, "Greenspan (once) recommended to a Senate committee that all economic regulations should have fixed lifespans. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) accused him of  'playing with fire, or indeed throwing gasoline on the fire,' and asked him whether he favored a similar provision in the Fed's authorization. Greenspan coolly  answered that he did. Do you actually mean, demanded the Senator, that the Fed 'should cease to function unless affirmatively continued?' 'That is correct, sir,' Greenspan responded."

Bradford continues, "The Senator could scarcely believe his ears. 'Now my next question is, is it your intention that the report of this hearing should be that Greenspan recommends a return to the gold standard?'

Greenspan responded, 'I've been recommending that for years, there's  nothing new about that. It would probably mean there is only one vote in the Federal Open Market Committee for that, but it is mine.'"
-- Editor, The Gilded Opinion ]

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire -- that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as  a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meagre wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur
only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable.

Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of  exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions.  However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth.

When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one -- so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in  one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly re-established a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease:  if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline -argued economic interventionists -- why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely -- it was claimed -- there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.

The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market -- triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom.  But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form -- from a growing number of welfare-state advocates -- was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state).

Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited.

The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which -- through a complex series of steps -- the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

by Alan Greenspan
Reprinted by USAGOLD with editorial content on July 6, 2001.

'66 Greenspan article supports gold standard 
By Jon Dougherty
Friday, April 27, 2001

A 1966 newsletter article written by Alan Greenspan supporting a gold-based U.S. economy is reflective of the Federal Reserve chairman's beliefs even today, WorldNetDaily has learned, even though his Fed policies are diametrically opposed to those that would support a gold standard economy.
The article, entitled, "Gold and Economic Freedom," was written for the July 1966 issue of The Objectivist newsletter, a publication that also featured authors Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.

In it, Greenspan discusses "the specific role of gold in a free society," as well as the importance of a tangible monetary "standard."

"If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forego the inestimable advantages of specialization," he wrote. A congressional source told WorldNetDaily that Greenspan still agrees with the premise of his article today [2001], even though the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1972.

According to the source, Greenspan -- following a March House Banking Committee meeting -- told one lawmaker that if given a chance to add any "disclaimers" to the 34-year-old article, Greenspan said he still "would not change a single word."

He could not be reached for comment.

A congressional source told WND, "There is no doubt in my mind that the current monetary system is not only impractical in an economic sense, as well as being unconstitutional, it is immoral and dishonest from a biblical viewpoint."

Silver backed currency


Economic collapse ] Money myth ] The Fed ] Jekyll ] [ Gold standard ]