By Anna Von Reitz
For the last several months people have been wanting to argue over the pros and cons of silver versus gold standards to base monetary values on and so far as that goes, silver is the obvious choice. It's our traditional form of money and it is the least subject to manipulation. I have said that from Day One when the whole issue of precious metals-backed forms of money came up, and I still say so.
However, as I attempted to make clear in my discussion about The Goat Standard, nearly anything that has actual value can serve as a standard for exchange: a sin, a female goat, and $200 have the same value in the current system of things, and it doesn't much matter how you cut it.
The ridiculousness of the whole concept should be apparent given that example, but judging from some of the responses I've gotten, there are still those who just don't get the joke.
They know that the present monetary system is bogus and can cite chapter and verse for why it is bogus. The "secret" of the Federal Reserve is now well-known: check kiting is what the rest of us call it. And insurance is revealed to be nothing but legalized gambling. In fact, the entirety of the banking industry is now known to be a criminal enterprise aimed at theft of various kinds, fraud of various kinds, and enslavement of various kinds.
So--- now you think that "going back to the gold and/or silver standard" is the answer?
